World in the Satin Bag

World in the Satin Bag

Reading Resolution Redux: A Question For Readers

/

A couple days ago I wrote a post about my reading resolutions for 2010. In it I discussed my goal to read more international science fiction and fantasy, under the guise that intentionally doing so would not be as artificial as seeking out work by people of color. Looking back, I completely disagree with my original statement. But Dave B. from Robot Comics beat me to the punch with the following comment: I don’t know if “Read more international books” is more or less artificial than “Read more books by PoC.” They’re both seeking out specific types of authors, and nationality and race are by and large the same type of divide when speaking about sectioning people off into “groups”. Theoretically (though not at all absolutely), reading books by PoC gives you a different SUB-cultural voice/view, where reading international authors gives you a different cultural view/voice. But beyond that prefix, I don’t see any difference in consciously seeking one out or the other. Same with gender. It’s good to keep your mind open to all three – keep aware that you WOULD like to read more of all three – but to actively seek it out in numbers will be artificial no matter which of the three you’re talking out. Or so it strikes me. The first section is absolutely true. The very idea of intentionally seeking out international SF/F makes the actual reading artificial (in the sense that I am no longer reading organically–by how I find the story–but instead by a systemic, probably well-researched, purchasing/selecting method). No matter how I try to spin it, there is no difference between seeking out international SF/F or works by people of color. And this is where I have such a big problem: the end of Dave’s comment hints to exactly how I read (I am open to all manner of writing by authors of various nationalities, genders, and races, with the exception, obviously, that the work be written or translated into my native and only tongue–English). I generally do not select what I read by any factor other than by what I happen to like (and those likes are changing dramatically these days due to exposure to all kinds of new forms of writing), but at the same time I am always on the look out for new and interesting stories from all over the world and often gravitate towards such things when they are properly advertised as such. Only, that rarely happens (for international SF/F or people of color), and in some cases probably for good reasons. I can see problems with publishers using one’s gender or race as a gimmick for selling one books, which might be why many of them don’t do it (a guess on my part). So, do I simply take the artificial road and try to find these works where they appear? Is there anything wrong with an artificial method for selecting reading material? Am I reading too much into the notion of “artificial” and, thus, creating doubt within myself about the effectiveness of such a “habit?” I’d really love opinions on this, folks. While I do not base my reading habits on one’s race, gender, or nationality, I still am very uncomfortable with the gaps in my reading, not because I am guilty of anything, but because I feel like I’m missing something vital.

World in the Satin Bag

Reading Resolutions: Enhanced and Revamped

/

Earlier this year I laid out some New Years resolutions for 2010, some of them related to reading and others related to writing. But Laura Miller over at Salon.com (and Larry over at OF Blog of the Fallen) wrote something that made me think that maybe I should be a little more challenging and, perhaps, rigorous in how I address my reading habits this year. Looking back over all the books I have read in the last two years (not including school books, which are chosen for me, rather than by me), I’ve noticed the following things: Books Read (07-09): 60 (roughly; I’ve forgotten a few here or there and left off books I couldn’t finish or were anthologies of some description)By Women: 22By Men: 38By People of Color: 3 (this is not exact and based entirely on available information)By International Authors (not including Canada or the UK): 5Fantasy: 30Science Fiction: 26Other: 4 Again, these are books I read for my own enjoyment. If I included books for school you would see a dramatic shift in works by people of color and women (and I do quite enjoy many of those school books, by the way, though certainly not all). What I find curious about these numbers are three things: I have an almost even 50/50 split between SF and F.You’d think I would have read twice as much science fiction in the last three years. Apparently not. I’ve read around 1.5 times more books by men than women.I had expected the numbers to be a little closer, but I’m also pleased that the difference is relatively nominal. I’ve read few novels by authors from outside of the big three (the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.).I wasn’t surprised by this, but it is something that I want to resolve. In this case, I don’t think it will be as artificial as #4 (below) simply because international SF, while not hard to find, is certainly not what seems to get pushed on bookshelves. I’ve read almost no works by people of color.Now, there are two things that I think need to be said about this. The first is that I had to do a whole bunch of Google searches to figure out who was and was not a person of color (using a fairly broad definition). I couldn’t have told you who was and was not Asian or African American or what have you prior to this. The second is that I didn’t buy or review the books I read based on race (I can’t do that if I don’t know). This, of course, concerns me. While I had the opportunity to read a heck of a lot of women in the last few years, there weren’t a lot of opportunities to read works by people of color (I’ve read a lot of short stories by PoC, but I left those out of this analysis). I don’t know if it would be fair to say that this is indicative of a void in the SF/F publishing industry; having read 60 books in the last three years (a pathetic number, to say the least), it probably wouldn’t be right to use my numbers to comment on a bigger object. At the same time, however, I don’t know if I can use this as a basis for any particular challenge for 2010. While it would be nice to read more work by PoC, it would also be too artificial and meaningless to spend my days intentionally trying to find work by PoC. I’m not saying that works by PoC aren’t worth the effort, just that it defeats the purpose of legitimately reading work by such folks if I’m intentionally trying find them. I don’t know if that makes sense (please, leave a comment if you’re confused by what I’m saying here, or if what I’m saying is somehow indicating a negative attitude towards PoC writers). Looking at all of this, I do have some revamped reading resolutions for 2010 (challenges, actually). Read at least one full book a week. Read more international SF/F. Read a book or two outside of my traditional reading interests. Read more non-fiction. I think those are fairly reasonable reading goals. What about you? Do you have any reading goals?

World in the Satin Bag

RoF’s Women-Only Issue: Good or Bad?

/

Realms of Fantasy Magazine recently announced that in August of 2011 they will be releasing a special themed issue of the magazine called “Women in Fantasy.” The idea is that every department will be dedicated to that theme in some way, and only women can submit. I have mixed feelings about this: Are they going to do a “Men in Fantasy” issue? If not, why? While I understand the impetus behind creating the issue, it also has the potential to do more harm than good if the RoF folks aren’t careful. Yes, there should be more women writers in SF/F, but this is going one step farther by intentionally discriminating based on sex, without considering fairness; it could be seen as playing the payback game rather than doing anything for the community as a whole. This, to me, could be as divisive as all the other discussions begun and ended over the last year. I don’t think this is nearly as “revolutionary” as the title and the explanation seems to indicate. While there are not enough recognizable female figures in the speculative genres, this is far less true of fantasy than science fiction. Most of the problems with under-representation seem focused more on SF than F. If Analog or Asimov’s were doing a similar thing, then not only would there be more of an uproar (for various reasons, many of them wrong), but such as issue would have a greater impact on the genre. Right now? I don’t see this as being all that revolutionary when you consider that their primary genre (fantasy) is much more friendly to women than other genres (and no, I am not saying that F is perfect at all). I agree with one of the commentators that the “Women in Fantasy” idea comes off very much like a stunt. I don’t mind stunts, generally speaking, but when dealing with a clearly sensitive issue, this is problematic. I fail to understand why this issue of RoF is “women only” when the theme is “Women in Fantasy.” Is there an assumption that men can’t properly address the topic? Are men assumed to be less adequate at writing female characters or talking about women figures in fantasy? I don’t know. Maybe that’s not what they are thinking, but these are things that pop into my head. Generally speaking, I like the idea behind it. I think an issue dedicated to the discussion of women in fantasy (including fiction about women in fantasy worlds) is a fantastic idea. It could turn into something stunning, if done right. Having said all of this, I’m both curious and put-off by RoF’s “Women in Fantasy” issue. I hope it turns out well, but I think the potential for it to be regarded as something astonishing may be hampered by a failure to address the underlying problems of a gender-specific issue. We’ll see how it turns out. (Mike Brotherton offers his opinion here.)

World in the Satin Bag

Scifi Squad’s Top Scifi Rapist

/

Last month, Scifi Squad posted a top ten list of scifi couples. The usual suspects show up there (Han and Leia from Star Wars), with a few modern additions (Zoe and Wash from Firefly and WALL-E and Eve from WALL-E). But then there’s #3: Rick and Rachael from Blade Runner. I wasn’t aware that being a rapist made you one half of an awesome scifi couple. But maybe the Scifi Squad folks don’t remember the scene where Rick Deckard throws Rachael against the wall after she tries to leave, and then forces himself upon her (she cries in that scene, by the way) while terrifying her into telling him “she wants it.” It wasn’t hidden. The scene is pretty damned clear: at best, Deckard is an abusive son of a bitch; at worst, he’s the worst kind of rapist you’d expect to see in a Lifetime movie. They’re reasoning? Between filming two parts of his memorable Star Wars romance, Harrison Ford fell in love with a replicant. That’s the last thing you’d expect from the world-weary Rick Deckard, who specializes in terminating “skin jobs,” but the heart wants what the heart wants, and the cool, classic beauty of Rachael (Sean Young) sneaks through his defenses, until he’s doing everything within his power to keep her alive. Did they see the same movie I did? He hardly does anything for Rachael. Yes, at the end of the movie he takes her away, but that’s the only moment where Deckard really does anything for her (rather than for himself). Throughout most of the movie he is either screwing with her mind (i.e. telling her she’s a replicant and that all her memories, which she thinks, at that point, are hers, are in fact fabrications), killing her kind, or forcing himself upon her. One shouldn’t forget that the world Deckard has come to know pretty much allows him to get away with doing whatever he wants to the so called “skin jobs.” I wonder if a little of that has rubbed off into the real world… Two thumbs up for rapists, I suppose.

World in the Satin Bag

Cover Sins: Young Flandry and the Thoughts Inspired

/

Aidan Moher over at A Dribble of Ink recently posted the cover art for Young Flandry by Poul Anderson; it is by far one of the worst covers I have ever seen (just look below). Now, to be fair to Baen, they haven’t exactly been at the forefront of excellent cover art (in fact, they’re fairly well known for regularly producing questionable covers), but this one really takes the cake:I left the following comment at A Dribble of Ink: Well, Mr. Anderson just rolled over in his grave and vomited a fine mixture of dirt and liquid flesh…this is why I’ve never purchased as Baen book. There might be a good story under the cover, but I refuse to cover my bookshelf with stuff that looks like that. I have a reputation to uphold… I mean that too. The only Baen books I own were given to me as used copies; I keep their covers hidden from anyone who might actually come to my apartment and look at my collection. As a result, I have yet to buy a Baen book because when it comes to really bad cover art, I do judge a book by its cover. There’s bad cover art, and then there’s atrocious cover art (the kind of stuff that other people see on your shelf and judge you by); Baen frequently produces the latter. I fail to see any reason for Baen to have such crappy covers. Do they not have $20 to pay some DeviantArt kid to produce something of at least reasonable quality? It’s not that hard to find these people (I recently did just that and ended up with ten fairly good pieces of art for a very reasonable price). There are thousands of decent starting artists on DeviantArt, and I know Baen sells books (they’re in most bookstores, after all) and, thus, has a moderate enough cash flow to commission good-enough-art (which would be acceptable). So, what’s the hold up? The only thing I can assume about Baen is that they do this on purpose either to create the effect of the pulps or to be distinct. The problem is that a lot of their novels aren’t actually pulp novels (David Weber, for example), so poor cover quality seems more detrimental to the value of the work than anything else. And if they are trying to be distinct, they’ve succeeded, but only in making their books look like garbage. I feel sorry for the authors. I know Baen has done a lot of wonderful stuff for the SF/F community, but they could put the same amount of effort into the books they produce for consumers (and their authors) as they do into making the SF/F world better for all of us. Get with the program, Baen. Your crummy CG renders, your pulpy porno nonsense, and your other cover problems are not helping you sell books to this reader. Not at all.

Scroll to Top