The Primate Paradox: An Analytical Thought
When you look at the passage in the image below, I want you to think of one thing: this is a primate (Robert Anton Wilson) writing about the philosophical limitations of primate logic; in doing so, however, the primate has proven that what is written is, in fact, demonstrating a different limitation of primate logic–that primate logic not limited to the whims of singular causality, but instead limited by selling the primate species short. See for yourself:Now discuss…
Amazon (Retailer) vs. Macmillan (Publisher): Epic Battle or Silly Mistake? (Update)
(Some new links and stuff have been added on the bottom.) The short version: Amazon pulled all of Macmillan’s titles (print and otherwise) from their website due, apparently, to the publisher’s desire to raise ebook prices. Speculation says this is because Amazon wants people to buy the Kindle, making higher prices for ebooks bad news when it’s a big publisher pushing the price game. But there are also speculations that this is in response to Macmillan’s deals with Apple, about which Amazon is not at all happy. The long version: I’ll send you to others for that, because I don’t want to simply repeat what has already been said. There’s Scalzi’s three posts on the subject, then Writtenwyrdd’s take, and Tobias S. Buckell’s take. My take: I can’t help feeling like this is going to end up poorly for Amazon. Yes, playing hardball seems like it would work in principle, but I don’t think Amazon has seriously considered the competition coming their way via the Nook, Apple’s iPad (a minor nuisance right now), and the dozens of other companies pushing the ePub format. It could go bad for the publishers too, I suppose, but Amazon is the one that really should be rethinking its business model right now. Because if the Nook and the other ePub format folks take off, then Amazon will be unable to compete or negotiate because the publishers will no longer want to work with them on electronic format (or print format even, since B&N does both, and generally at the same prices as Amazon). Amazon will have to consider pushing other media over books. But what do you think? (An even more detailed analysis of what is going on can be found here at Tobias S. Buckell’s blog and at Jay Lake’s blog. You can read Macmillan’s response here.)
Dear Authors: Please Don’t Stand Up For What’s Right (Make Profit Instead)
There’s been a lot of talk about whitewashing covers lately. I haven’t brought it up here yet because I didn’t think there was much else to say that hadn’t already been said elsewhere, and to greater effect. Then someone wrote the following: But there was one response from people who were justifiably angry that I do not think was practical, and that was the expectation that the author should have spoken up publicly and denounced this cover. Even if, these people said, even if authors really have no control over their covers and it’s all the publisher’s doing, she should make a stand! This is roughly equivalent to expecting someone who has just acquired their dream job to curse their boss for doing something wrong. In front of a packed press room. While the boss is standing beside them on the podium. Economics do not equal ethics, but I think it is important to consider how much we demand of people who could endanger their livelihood and their futures by speaking out. Great change has been made by brave people who have spoken out on social injustices committed by their employers, but they paid and paid and paid for it. There is real and substantial risk, and it is sometimes hard to gauge the cost-benefits to society of taking it, especially when we are talking about someone who wrote a story about a woman of colour who could well end up unable to do so ever again if she is decided to be a troublemaker not worth publishing. The short of it is this: if you’re afraid of losing a publishing deal for standing up for what is right (i.e. fighting against whitewashed covers, a.k.a. white people on covers for books with “colored” characters), then don’t say anything. Those who get angry with you for not doing anything are just jerks. To which I say, “Bullcrap.” While I understand the fear and the apprehension to act against any form of institutionalized (or even accidental) racism, you can’t keep quiet about it while assuming that that no-action is ethically appropriate. Why? Because it makes anyone who doesn’t say something, who doesn’t stand up for what’s right complicit in the wrong being committed, particularly if that person continues to participate in the institution committing the wrong (in this case, publishing). Complicit, you say? Yes, because presumably that author is going to make money (or already has) by selling a book whose cover is the product of a racist system/accident. Said author is literally profiting off of racism, even if he or she had no control over the artwork for the cover (silence is complicity). If you don’t see the ethical problems there (and I don’t know if the original author does), then there’s a disconnect between your reality and the reality the rest of us live in. So, please, authors far and wide, do not stand up for what you believe to be right. Please, profit off of a system that under-represents people of color and women (for whatever reason) and participates in a racist scheme (even if it is accidental). Give in to fear and help the institution of racism to continue to permeate our industries. A big middle finger to all those Civil Rights activists who were assaulted by fire hoses or beaten by police officers (or murdered) for having the audacity to face their fear and stand up for their rights. Big middle finger indeed. P.S.: To the point about telling your racist boss off for being racist — explain to me why you would want to work for a racist if you yourself are not of the same mindset? Exactly. I also think the author isn’t giving enough credit to the power of the Internet. If a whole bunch of authors writing about traditionally marginalized figures started getting “offed” by the publishing houses for speaking up against whitewashing, do you honestly think that the Internet wouldn’t be on top of that like a diabetic on the last insulin shot on the planet?
Magical Realism: A Brief Definition (in the form of a rebuttal)
Over at Suite 101 they have an article about Magical Realism. While the author lists some excellent examples of the subgenre, I do think she gets one thing quite wrong: An angel walks into your local grocery story with shiny wings and a glowing halo. Everyone accepts this as a natural occurrence and doesn’t bat an eye. My problem with this statement isn’t that it’s simplistic–the author admits that as a fault. The problem is that it’s wrong on a fundamental level. I would argue that Magical Realism is actually an exceptional disconnection of the fantastic from focus. Yes, it is about the acceptance of the fantastic as natural, but it goes beyond that. Magical Realism makes exceptional, both in its form (writing) and its content (characters, etc.), the naturalization and de-mystification of the fantastic; this means that, while Fantasy presents the fantastic in a way that is both exceptional in its presentation (i.e. we see it vividly and in a form that clearly demarcates the elements that make it fantastic) and its content (stories “of” the fantastic), Magical Realism does the exact opposite, taking something that we know doesn’t exist (or at least only exists in a particularly limited supernatural scope) and putting it into the backdrop of an otherwise “real” story. You don’t actually “see” the fantastic elements in Magical Realism unless you’re intentionally looking for it. They become so utterly embedded into the world, so de-emphasized so as to be less than a passing fancy. You don’t see the fantastic in Magical Realism well enough to say that it is a coherent structure of the fiction being portrayed. So, when an author uses an example like an angel walking into a grocery store, that has far more to do with urban fantasy than it does with magical realism. Why? Because the angel is not de-emphasized; the example clearly allocates considerable textual play to the nature of that angel’s existence, placing such a being outside of the exceptionally naturalized. Magical Realism goes that one step further by making the fantastic natural for us (the readers) too. Does anyone disagree with me? Let me know what you think about Magical Realism. I’m curious to hear opinions on this.
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.
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?