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.
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
Why I Haven’t Babbled About the Hugo Awards…Yet
You’ll notice that I haven’t joined in on the discussion about the Hugos this year. Granted, there hasn’t been nearly the level of intense debate as there was last year, though some folks have waded into the categories discussion, which has been going on for a while. There’s a pretty good reason why I’ve been mostly silent: I don’t have anything new to say. If you recall, Justin Landon basically ruined the Internet last year when he posted about what he perceived as the problems with the Hugo Awards. I still tend to agree with most of his points, even many of those we both raised in these episodes on The Skiffy and Fanty Show. But I sort of also agree with Justin’s later post on why the Hugos don’t really need to change…mostly. As it stands, Justin argued, the awards function within a particular paradigm, and to try to insert another paradigm within that may be the wrong course of action. The Hugos aren’t perfect as is; both of us have acknowledged that in one fashion or another. I think there are some things that have to change about the award, but I’m also convinced that a lot of the things I want to change (category issues, etc.) may be resolved in time anyway. Just…in time. And in retrospect, I agree with Kevin Mudd’s assertion that the Hugos function so slowly because they are democratic (well, I agree that the process is slow because it contains procedures that appear democratic, not that the Hugos are themselves democratic)(I may be misremembering Mudd’s position because that was last year and it’s now 2014). But the thing is…I have nothing new to say about all of this. I’m not angry this year. I’m not irritated. I’m indifferent. Not to the Hugos as an idea, but rather to their operation or flaws. I love the Hugos as an idea. It’s an important award. I’d like to see it changed for the better in time, too. But I’m also not interested in having the debate…again. I don’t see the point in saying what we’ve already said again. If change is going to happen, it’ll happen because people on the inside will create those changes or the people outside of it who want changes band together and use their vote to alter what appears on the ballots. This is a debate that probably will continue for a while: what do we do to keep the Hugos relevant? Perhaps we can do what Landon suggested he might do — start new awards, leaving the Hugos alone to do “their thing.” Or maybe we just have to accept that we have to be more proactive, not in trying to massively change it all in one fell swoop, but in a more measured approach, vote by vote, discussion by discussion. But ultimately, I don’t feel like the debate matters that much this year. The repetition feels flat, wasted. It feels like it pales in comparison to the very real insurgency within our community, the fracturing of communities (as Jonathan McCalmont suggests here), and so on. Those are things we have to solve now so we can have a better “future” for later. And that’s why I’m not really talking about the Hugos like I was last year. Instead, I’ll talk about what I’m going to nominate, do my best to make it to Worldcon this year (more on that later), and generally enjoy what I can of this community. The End.
Self-Published Books vs. Literary Awards: In Response to Linda Nagata
I’m a little late to the party, but Linda Nagata kindly rebutted my original post on the logistical issues of literary awards as a rationale for the rejection of self-published books from the consideration lists. Here, I’d like to respond to some of her arguments. First, I’ll say that I don’t disagree with most of what Nagata has to say. As an author who has traveled in both publishing camps, she of course understands the issue on a different level, and thus has valid points to make about the value of literary awards to SPed authors, etc. My main point of contention surrounds this quote: The way I see it, there are two main purposes to a literary award: (1) to bring attention to specific books and authors, and by so doing (2) to shape the genre. Whether (1) & (2) come to pass or not, neither purpose is harmed or diminished by consideration of a self-published work. This may be an issue of wording, but I don’t consider these two components as the purposes of literary awards. While the “shaping the genre” is certainly an effect of an award, to some extent, it is also a somewhat ambitious concept to apply to an extremely focused practice, particularly since “shaping,” as I see it, is organic rather than artificial. We shape the genre by our reading choices and what we talk about as a community, not by recognizing works as “good” by a set of disparate, cross-purpose standards — as all awards invariably are. Awards certainly cross over with the trend-setters and shaping works, but I find it hard to imagine the genre shaped purposefully by awards as opposed to by side effect. This is particularly true of populist awards, which certainly suggest some potential for shaping, but which themselves are fickle, shifting, and disparate in form. What the public likes one year will not match what they like the next, and in the long course of time, what they liked in 1987 may have been forgotten in 2007. Curated awards suffer from a separate issue, which I’d simply call the limits of critical focus. (This is a somewhat truncated explanation, so I hope the reader will forgive me here.) The first of Nagata’s points is, of course, related. For me, awards are not there to bring attention to works, but rather to recognize works that fit within a certain paradigm based on that paradigm’s criteria. This is where the wording comes in, as I see something different between “recognizing” and “bring attention to.” The first denotes the idea that this work deserves attention because it meets certain criteria, while the second seems to have a more directed shaping effect — i.e., here’s a work you should talk about. Recognition, however, is about achievement. In curated awards, it’s an acknowledgement that your work successfully fulfilled the award’s criteria, and is thus noteworthy. In populist awards, it’s the public’s acknowledgement of the same, but with less stringent and often impossibly variable standards. I suspect Nagata and I don’t actually disagree here, though. Basically, I see the literary award as contingent upon its established criteria, however nebulous, and the process of applying that criteria necessarily specifies texts and author. For example, the Nebulas only recognize science fiction and fantasy works from authors who are members of the SFWA; from there, the awards themselves only recognize what that small community determines is “the best,” which itself isn’t a hard set criteria we can accurately describe, since it is entirely subjective. As such, narrowing by publication method is just another set of arbitrary criteria. The other thing I should mention here concerns the idea that the awards we have in our community are naturally open to SPed works. While it is true that most (or all) of the awards are open to SPed works based on its given criteria for selection, there are few examples of such works appearing on lists from authors who themselves have not at one point, especially recently, had their work published traditionally. This distinction may seem trivial, but I think it is important to recognize how our community applies validity to a given work. In many respects, our community still does not look highly upon authors who have been published primarily on their own; it is far more forgiving when that author has a traditional publishing career either before or after the publication of an SPed work. That’s something we’ll see change in the future — possibly when SFWA raises its pro payment rate for magazines to $0.25/word (ha) — but probably not after some form of mass culling or shift within self-publishing. On that last sentence, I’d like to expand something I’d said before on the nature of the SPed world. Nagata doesn’t address at length my contention about the quality of SPed works (not that she needed to, mind), but she does say the following: “[That SPed works are more commonly bad in comparison to TPed works] is still a common assumption, so credibility is extremely important for a writer who chooses to publish her own work.” I concur that recognition via an award is certainly good for any author, particularly since, as Nagata discusses briefly in her post, awards can have a measurable impact on one’s career. However, Nagata’s track record is one that is fairly unique in the SP world. In comparison to the sea of SPers, most of them are not also traditionally published and award winners. Nagata, as it turns out, has won awards in the past — the Locus for best first novel[2] (The Bohr Maker) and the Nebula for best novella (Goddesses)(woot) — and she has most certainly had a decent career as a traditionally published writer of short and long fiction, though of late she has been primarily of the other stripe. I don’t bring this up to discount her argument, nor to poke mean fingers at her career or anything (a considerably one, actually), but rather to point out
My Hopes and Anticipations for Science Fiction and Fantasy in 2014
2014 is almost upon us, and I’m already thinking about what is to come. What will 2014 be like? Will it be awesome? Will someone release a stunning science fiction novel or an exciting YA fantasy or an *epic* epic fantasy? The only way to find out is to live long enough to see it, I suppose (that’s my early New Year’s resolution). But I do have my hopes for next year. Big, juicy hopes. And they are as follows: A World SF Sorta Year If you don’t already know, my SF/F podcast, The Skiffy and Fanty Show, is hosting a massive World SF Tour throughout 2014. We’ve already lined up a lot of great folks from all over the world, and that’s just for the first couple months. This thing has barely begun. Since the World SF blog has ended, I’m hoping this special season of the show will help fill the gap a bit. More importantly, I really hope we’ll open further dialogue between (and within) the western SF/F spheres and the equally valuable spheres from elsewhere. We should be talking to each other, and this whole Internet thing is a great way to make that possible. So I really hope we’ll spark a bit of a discussion in the community. That would be a great thing indeed. No Kerfluffles I know this dream will never come true, but I’m putting it here anyway. I would really like to see a year in the SF/F world that doesn’t include fiascos and people saying racist, sexist, or downright douchey things. Just for one year. Please. Please? The Author List Here are all the authors whose work I’m looking forward to in 2014 (assuming they’re releasing anything) Myke Cole (Breach Zone comes out in a month, and I get to interview him with my bestie. So, basically, my life is awesome right now.) Stina Leicht (I don’t think she’ll have anything out next year, but I hear she’s working on something that’s super cool beans — I may have the inside scoop.) China Mieville (It better be clever. Oh, hell, who am I kidding? Of course it will be clever!) Lauren Beukes (Will she ever stop writing awesome books? No. Never. EVER!) Ann Leckie (I quite liked Ancillary Justice and am eagerly anticipating the sequel. I’m told it’ll be an even stronger book.) Nick Mamatas writing noir crime fiction (because that should be very interesting indeed) Nalo Hopkinson (Sister Mine was fantastic, so if she releases anything next year, I’ll be happy) Tobias S. Buckell (more Xenowealth stuff, please!) Yoon Ha Lee (I have dreams that she’ll release a novel and that it will be the most amazing thing since the invention of air.) Christopher Barzak (two things: 1) I demand more writing in any form imaginable, and 2) I cannot wait to see the film adaptation of One For Sorrow) Karen Lord (she could release a story on a restaurant napkin and I’d probably still read it enthusiastically) Brian Francis Slattery (Lost Everything was genius, so another novel would be amazing) That’s not an exhaustive list, obviously. They’re names that came up when I started thinking about this whole thing. I’d also love to see something new from Alden Bell, Jane Rogers, and even some translated works from China and the surrounding nations (Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, etc.). I’d also love to see some groundbreaking SF/F next year. I haven’t the foggiest what that would look like, but I do think we’re overdue for a year that really throws us SF/F folks for a loop. Dialogue Reboot This is somewhat related to the kerfluffle thing above. Basically, I think it would be lovely if we could actually have a dialogue about things like sexual harassment at cons, sexism in SF/F, racism in SF/F, and so on. A discussion. A talk. Not two groups screaming at each other or self-segregating out of convenience. I realize this is a tall order, in part because disparate groups simply don’t agree about things, but I think we could get a lot more done if these issues were discussed more openly without the need to simply reject every claim. This is also a completely absurd request. Movies I anticipate that the following will be true in 2014: Marvel will continue to dominate in film. With X-Men: Days of Future Past, Captain America: the Winter Soldier, and Guardians of the Galaxy coming our way, it’s hard to imagine Marvel won’t be king for another year. Science fiction will dominate. With Edge of Tomorrow, Interstellar, the Marvel films, Hunger Games 3, The Giver, and Jupiter Ascending expected to hit theaters next year, I strongly suspect SF will be all the rage (as it was this year, really). Robocop will probably be a lot of fun, but I expect it to bomb. I couldn’t care less about Transformers 1132424 or The Maze Runner (it will bomb). But I expect those other films to do quite well. Science fiction will not receive any major award nominations in categories people remember (namely, best director, actor/actress (lead or supporting), or best picture), and at least one of the films released this year will have deserved to have been on those lists. Hunger Games 3 will be the knockout of the year. If Hunger Games 2 is any indicator of this franchise’s success, you can expect the (supposedly two part) finale to rock the box office. Fantasy will mostly suck in 2014. There are a couple of decent movies coming, and I have no doubt the genre will make a pretty penny, but I really don’t think there will be anything of serious note from the fantasy genre next year. The Hugos (and Other Awards) When the awards season rolls around, I suspect a lot of people will be annoyed and pissed off again. I look forward to a thoughtful discussion about the merits of these awards that leads to something worthwhile (like changes or new, viable awards). Or we’ll just have another pissing match. I’m getting quite