Another Week of Joy Commences Today
I’ve done this before. Last night, I declared Friday the beginning of another Week of Joy, in which I will only discuss or talk about happy things, like books, movies, spaceships, magic wizard monkeys, and anything that should be, in principle, producers of happiness. You are free to join me in whatever way appeals to you.
Fishing (or Publishing); Whatever
Person One: There is only one way to fish. Fly fishing. Obviously. You would be a fool to try anything else. Person Two: Nu-uh. Angling is the only valid method, sir. I have clearly done better than you via this method, so you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Person Three: Oh yeah? Well I know better than both of you. Netting is clearly the best method, because you can catch more fish at the same time, and that means you can be as fat and pompous as you like…I mean, you can eat lots. Person Four: You’re all wrong, and utterly stupid for not realizing that the best method is clearly spearfishing, which has the ability of bringing you closer to the medium of the fish. Without the spear, we would not be fisherman. Person Five: Bullshit. You’re all morons. Hand gathering is truly getting “into the fish.” This is how the masters do it, and if you can’t be bothered to do it this way, then I’d rather piss in your cereal than let you anywhere near the fish. Person Six: I kinda like all of them. Sometimes it’s nice to have all these different ways to do things. Persons One through Five: FUUUUUUUUUUUUU SHUT UP YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU DIE DIE DIE GGRRRRRAAAAAAA! The traditional vs. indie vs. self-publishing debate in a nutshell. Involving fish. As metaphors. The end. For the record: I don’t know anything about fishing, except that there are lures and things. And that you catch fish. And then eat them. I want fish…
How to Destroy the SFWA…err, no, I’m not going to talk about that after all
This post began as a parody or a satire. Whatever it began as, it was a scathing critique of someone else whose post I’m not going to link to because I just don’t see a point in directly addressing anything said there or using my website as a link vehicle for what amounts to “people screaming about things they don’t understand.” Phew. Big sentence. So, I’ve come to this point where I either shrug, shake my head, and walk away to other things, or I write parodies/satires because I don’t want to repeat myself. I’m going with the first route (except the walking away part). The SFWA nonsense shouldn’t be so nonsensical. It shouldn’t be this difficult for some people to articulate a position that doesn’t make them look like assholes. It shouldn’t be this difficult for those same people to understand what some people are saying. It shouldn’t be this difficult for those same people to acknowledge that their worldview isn’t the only one or that it shouldn’t be just because it makes them comfortable. It shouldn’t be this difficult for those same people to realize they’re arguing over a straw man and to start actually addressing what really bothers them, or to understand that gender matters, race matters, that our field is not perfect, that there are real structural problems here, that how people feel matters even if you don’t understand it because you’re not like them, that the world and its sf/f traditions matter, that how you represent others in a professional venue matters… It shouldn’t be this difficult. But it is. And it’s incredibly frustrating to see name after name after name argue “1st Amendment” this or “political correctness” that. To see them argue about things that aren’t happening, using definitions of words that make no sense (apparently “no politics” and “professionalism” means “say whatever you want in a professional venue without repercussions” — who knew?). To see other people explain why the views of this group is skewed by straw man arguments and misunderstanding, only to get ignored because…reasons? To see perfectly intelligent people refuse to acknowledge that gender and sexuality matter, and that giving up something like a pronoun really doesn’t cost any individual person anything worth hanging onto, or to see them hypocritically argue that the SFWA shouldn’t have anything to do with gender/sexuality/etc. while supporting inappropriate behavior from a while male author or two in a professional venue. To see a female author get pissed on by someone in a position of authority because she didn’t dress conservative enough to qualify as a “feminist” (another redefined term). To see discussions of diversity dismissed as “political correctness,” which roughly translated means, “I used to be able to say offensive things to these people, but now I’m unhappy because I can’t without getting called out for it.” To see a member of the community write a mini-manifesto on how to fix the SFWA, when really it would completely destroy the organization’s ability to represent the interests of sf/f writers and prevent the organization from celebrating its diversity (of all sorts). As if somehow this would make things better. As if somehow the organization does nothing today, when it obviously does. To see the complete inability of certain people to have the basic level of respect for others, even insofar as it might mean letting those others be represented in a journal designed for their profession. Not as a political game. Not as a manifesto for something. But as an acknowledgement that people like them exist and are writing books or movies or whatever, and that there are particularities to the field that are relevant to them. SF/F deserves better than this. And that’s all I’m going to say about that.
Link of the Week: “Me, as a useful representative example” by Mary Robinette Kowal
If you want to know the background for all of this, start with this post (mine) and all the links listed there, then go here (The Daily Dot) and here (Silvia Moreno-Garcia). These will provide you with the necessary details to really understand why Mary Robinette Kowal has become a target by…certain individuals. In short, her post provides an example of precisely the sort of treatment many women receive in the SF/F community and the publishing industry. It’s worth reading. It’s worth thinking about. That is all. (For the record: Mary once donated an hour of her time to The Skiffy and Fanty Show — cause she’s awesome.)
Censorship is what people say when they don’t want to address the actual issue…for reasons
The other day, I posted about the SFWA Bulletin Petition thing. I’m not going to rehash that debate here, though you’re welcome to read it (there are links at the bottom of that post to other discussions). However, I do think it a good idea to take a moment to talk about the rhetoric surrounding this ordeal, because much of the anger and confusion is, if not deliberate, then certainly the product of a particular discourse which naturally stifles debate or discussion. The centerpiece of this rhetorical game is “censorship,” which many have already discussed at some length elsewhere. Here, I’m interested in how “censorship” is used in the service of the agenda at the heart of the petition and the debates that followed: I. Censorship is a Distortion First, I think it is worth reminding everyone that in discussions that begin with censorship, the charge itself is almost always not reflective of reality. The original version of Truesdale’s petition argues, for example, that the SFWA is “about to institute a policy of censorship based on political correctness in the organization’s public publication,” followed closely by the following: The search for a new Bulletin editor followed the Summer 2013 resignation (under pressure) of the then (lady) editor (for the use of an “inappropriate” cover among other alleged crimes), and the brouhaha involving two long-time and well respected Bulletin columnists whose use of the words “lady editors,” “beautiful,” and a few other innocuous descriptive words led, for the first time in the history of the Bulletin, to its suspension (as of this writing no editor has been selected and the Bulletin remains in limbo).[1] As has already been pointed out by many people (see the links in my original post), this charge not only misrepresents what censorship is, but also the events which led the SFWA to make the changes that it did. It is either a deliberate distortion, or a delusional one, but a distortion nonetheless. Much of this relies on fuzzy terminology, such as the idea of “political correctness,” which in one light might mean “respectful” and in another might mean “stifling,” though the latter is definitively not the intent nor the purpose of the acts that frequently fall under “PC” (a distortion in and of itself). After all, to ask someone not to call black people “niggers” in a professional publication is hardly “politically correct” (i.e., stifling of one’s speech), but really a request for common courtesy at the very least. “Politically correct,” in other words, is just a buzzword for “I want to be able to say whatever I want without getting called out for it.” In a civilized culture, that’s hardly a reasonable position to take. Back to the subject of censorship as a distortion: Truesdale himself lists the offensive aspects of SFWA’s editorial job description, none of which fit within the definition he provides by implication. Censorship, in his argument, must by necessity have a political agenda. Yet, when he pressed Steven Gould for an answer to this “agenda,” the response demonstrated the exact opposite. As Gould wrote, “We don’t have guidelines for “acceptable” articles, art, and ads other than content needs to serve the needs of the organization. Chief among those are our 5 core mission areas: to inform, support, promote, defend and advocate for professional writers.” Simple right? Since the job of an editor is quite literally to fulfill the mission of whatever publication they edit, and that editor is answerable to whoever pays to publish the works, it’s hardly censorship to request that an editor have to do any of these things, particularly given the context in which the SFWA has made its claims. So the argument that an editor doing what an editor does in the service of a publication with a specific purpose is “censorship” is merely a distortion of editorial duties, and one grounded in a perspective which neither acknowledges that mutual respect must fall on the grounds of language (because language matters), but also within the terms of a given space. In this case, the SFWA’s space has a specific purpose, and the SFWA, it appears, has taken steps to make sure the Bulletin is relevant only to that purpose. There’s no active attempt to prevent members within the SFWA’s borders from saying what they like, just as there is no requirement for the Bulletin to publish whatever gets sent to it, as is completely reasonable. That’s just reality. Ultimately, censorship is rarely used in situations where it actually applies in these debates, in large part because censorship almost never occurs in these debates. Real censorship looks like this: You’re threatened with or put in prison because of what you say or write by the government or someone working for that government. You’re threatened with or a victim of violence because of what you say or write by the same. You’re preventing from accessing avenues of speech by the same. For example: if you run an online newspaper and the government shuts down your Internet or destroys your computers. Or any other situation in which the government directly interferes with your ability to freely exercise your speech (setting aside, of course, cases of libel, etc.). Not surprisingly, none of this applies in SFWA’s case. II. Censorship is a Distraction Since this petition relies on casting not only its initial terminology (censorship), but also the events in question within a perspective which requires absolute adherence to the first and absolute rejection of the latter (on the terms of the author alone), there’s little room for an actual debate here. In fact, the distortion of censorship (applying it in a scenario where suddenly “editing” becomes “censorship”) is a distraction. In vociferously defending this notion of “free speech” in a context in which it definitely does not apply, those who hold this position betray not only their ignorance of the terms, but also a profound disinterest in debate about the actual issue. As I noted to Paul Levinson in the comments
On the SFWA Bulletin Petition Thing Nonsense
(Note: I’ve listed links to other posts on this topic at the end.) I won’t have anything extensive to say on this “anti-political-correctness” petition thing. That’s mostly because Radish Reviews has pretty well covered it… That said, there are a few things I’ll address: 1) I’m utterly baffled by the difficulty certain members of this community have with understanding what the First Amendment means. We went over this in depth in my senior year of high school (everyone had to take a semester of government), so it was never a confusion for me: the First Amendment only applies to the government interfering with speech. In any other instance in which speech is hindered, the crime isn’t in preventing one’s speech, but something else entirely. Libel perhaps. Or maybe someone tied you down and forced you to write something against your will (like in Misery). All illegal because you’re committing other forms of crime. But it’s not illegal for me to tell anyone they can’t write for my blog. It’s my blog. It’s my space. If you were to ask me why I was censoring you by not letting you write for my blog, my only response would be: fuck off. And the SFWA is a private organization with its own rules, and one of those rules says the President handles publications. So if the President wants to change the Bulletin to a fishing journal, he or she can do that. Granted, I think it would be utterly stupid to do something like that, but so be it. That wouldn’t be censorship either. Even so, as C.C. Finlay has made clear all over the place, the changes coming to the Bulletin were requested by the majority of members, and one of those requests was basically “not publishing things that alienate segments of the community.” You know, because the Bulletin is supposed to serve the members at large, not some subset of people who don’t particularly care if they offend other people with their words. And if a good portion of people are offended by the content (legitimately offended, not “I’m offended because your offense means I can’t be offensive anymore,” which is total bullshit), then it makes sense to change things. Imagine, if you will (because you are probably a fan of SF/F and are fully capable of using your imagination), a situation where the Bulletin published an article in which one of the authors said Mormons aren’t real Christians (in seriousness, not as a reference to a work or something). Can you imagine how many Mormons would be offended by this? I know a few. I’m sure some Mormon members of this organization would be offended, too. And wouldn’t it go without saying that maybe we shouldn’t publish something in a journal about writing advice and market tips and professionalism that basically shits on other people, or at least makes others feel like they’ve been shit on (since individual perspectives vary)? Seems logical to me. It’s about respect, which I’ve already talked about. 2) I’m likewise baffled that Robert Silverberg admitted to signing the offensive, early version of the petition, even while admitting that he didn’t like what was in it. How am I to take this man’s judgment seriously? I don’t sign a loan contract if line 57 says “once a month, you will submit for experimental radiation tests to grow an alien tumor out of your rectum” and then say, “Well, but you’re going to change that part, right?” The petition isn’t legally binding, obviously, but I still don’t understand the defense. Either you agree with it as it is, or you don’t. And if you don’t…well, don’t sign it. I should also note that the original version of the petition is precisely the problem with this whole conversation: here’s the point <0>……………………………………….and here’s them <X>. They don’t get it. In case you missed that part. 3) The petition makes this strange claim that the Bulletin is becoming politicized (it’s politically correct, oh noes), but I fail to see how removing things that have nothing to do with the theme of the Bulletin and intentionally making the content more inclusive is anything but apolitical. The Bulletin isn’t a place to voice your political opinions anyway, so why should it make any effort to become a sandbox for those opinions which piss off a huge portion of the electorate and the people who actually care about this field? It doesn’t cost anyone anything not to be a rude dick in a professional journal (and, yes, that’s what this comes down to). Why would you *need* to voice an opinion about gay marriage or whether you think some members are fascists when that’s not the point of the Bulletin anyway? This isn’t about politics. Well, OK, outside of the Bulletin, it’s about politics on some level, though I’m inclined as a crazy liberal raised by a lesbian mother ninja to think that inclusiveness is apolitical in nature. But the Bulletin isn’t about politics. That’s not it’s purpose. That’s not what SFWA’s members want it to address. So this is a non-issue. 4) I don’t know Resnick and Malzberg. I’ve said my share on last year’s Bulletin fiasco already. I will agree that some of the dialogue surrounding last year’s events reaches too far. However, I also understand the frustration. For me, the issue with Resnick/Malzberg’s column is no longer “there was sexism in there,” which, in my mind, is fairly weak tea in comparison to, say Theodore Beale (Vox Day, who has since been removed from the SFWA), but rather the behavior demonstrated in that final column. To receive a lot of criticism from a wide body of individuals and to simply discount it is one thing, but to then use a professional organization’s professional publication to lob an attack on those people is callous at best, petty and horrendously unprofessional at worst. This is not the kind of behavior one expects to find in the pages of a professional journal, nor