One of the better attempts at bridge-building is being conducted by Mary Robinette Kowal, in a post here. In the comments, Elizabeth Bear (*the* Elizabeth Bear, omg *flails*) responded to a comment I left.
Because I am lousy at saying things succinctly, I am expanding on my reply to Ms Bear here.
***
I appreciate Ms Bear's candid declaration concerning visible
voting slates and her intent to reject all those works, writers, and artists
as unworthy of an award. That's her choice, and I respect her decision to do so.
(I also won’t hold it against her if in the future she changes her mind.) I do however disagree with the logic and utility of doing so, but wait
on that until the end.
To me, the slate voting process *could* be discussed in and
of itself – but that’s not what’s happening here. As I have said to other members of fandom,
though – I find it curious that rather than focusing on publicity efforts or
the existence of slates, the focus keeps slipping to *who* is on the slates,
and *who* might be recommending those works.
Bear said: Theo Beale first came after me for no good reason
except that I was a woman writing SF in like, 2004–and I have no truck with the
man (I’ve also spoken out publicly against Requires Hate’s bullying campaign,
for what it’s worth.)
I remember a bit of that, and I remember being a bit
surprised at the “going after a woman who wrote SF” bit, because dude – Cherryh?
Bujold? Willis? Moon? Aren't you annoyed at them, too? I don’t remember
the details of that squabble, frankly.
(I imagine the incident is a bit more etched in Ms Bear's memory.)
But that does bring to mind 2004, and the ultra-awesomeness that it was to be
conservative in on-line fandom during the US election season. The allusions to Hitler (*see note at the
end*), the hysterical accusations that concentration camps were being set up
for Muslims and gays, the sneering, the wild exaggerations, the ranting, the
accusations of intended genocide against minorities, of disenfranchisement of
women – and that was before the Republicans won. Good times, good times.
Which have only gotten worse, of course. The exaggerations and false accusations are
present in the comments of multiple other fans in the comments to MRK’s post –
despite it being the best attempt so far to build bridges between SP and
trufans.
I expect everyone carries a bit of baggage from back
then. My way of dealing with it, and
with the on-going hatchet jobs that have surfaced this week in mainstream
media, is this:
Firstly, I pick my fannish interactions with care, I don’t
go into liberal areas except in rare occasions, and I hang with fans who – even
if they might like somewhat different things than I do – don’t openly disparage
other people, and particularly not for their politics or religion.
Secondly, in terms of reading and judging works, I don’t
care who people are, what their politics are, or what they approve of. I had me
and my works judged on the basis of my politics and of lies and exaggerations about
what I said. I don’t do it to other
people, to the best extent I can. And to
that end, I absolutely endorse what Ms Bear said at the end:
(I note that last year’s slate included Requires
Hate *and* Vox Day. That’s so politically diverse it starts to come full
circle.)
Because the Hugos should be able to do that. We must NOT
make it so that the Hugos CANNOT do that.
I appreciate Ms Bear's efforts to reach across the
lines with assurances that she rejects RH and all her works. But I don’t
care. I’m not even going to ask if that speaking out came while Requires Hate was still just targeting Caucasian
guys or after she started going after POCs. Because I don’t care.
I don’t care if people reject RH. I don’t care if they reject VD. What I
reject are renunciations, litmus
tests, and assurances of purity in thought or deed.
I strongly oppose all attempts to set up a pattern of public
rejections, of dis-avowing, of assertion of rightthink, of the sort of
quasi-Inquisitionesque are you now or have you ever been a nasty
person who said nasty things to other people, as a part, of any sort, in the process of assessing the quality of a
particular work.
We should not be giving anyone the impression that people
are reading, enjoying, and buying their works of art on the basis that the
writer/artist “is a good person.” Or
that only “good people” can contribute meaningfully to society. Or that a meaningful contribution makes that
person (scientist, artist, bricklayer) a “good person.”
Being a crap writer does not make one a crap person any more
than being a crap welder makes one a crap person. And having a beautiful singing voice does not
an angel make.
If Fandom remains a single tent, we will have people inside
it who are frightful to each other. We
will have – as we have had before, and doubtlessly do now – people who are
rapists and child abusers. We will have thieves, bigots, scoundrels, rabble rousers, trolls, malcontents and liars. We will have our Mark Twains. We had Arthur C
Clark and Isaac Asimov, and we had Harlan Ellison, Vox Day, and Samuel Delaney. We had MZB, and we have Requires Hate, Kameron
Hurley, and K Tempest Bradford. And twenty
more I could name, and forty more you could name, and a thousand people we don’t
even know about yet.
In the end, it doesn’t matter if we storm Castalia House and
drag Vox Day to the gallows to be hung, drawn, and quartered, or just shoot him
in the street. It doesn’t matter if we
exile Requires Hate to the far Antilles or place her in the stocks and hurl
rotten produce at her until she breaks down into a catatonic quivering sobbing
mess.
Even if we were right in doing so, the blood and tears would
scarcely have dried before the shout went up to do the same to John C Wright
and NK Jemisin.
Fandom will not be cleansed by these actions. We will always have despicable people amongst
us. And unpleasant people. And people that others say are despicable, or not
pleasant, or Communist, or evangelicals, or who chew with their mouths open.
Criminals should be arrested and charged with crimes. Rude
people should be told that they are being rude, and not invited to tea by
people who don’t like their rudeness.
Works should be read, or seen, or heard, and not judged
based on their creators.
SP came about because a huge chunk of fandom is reacting to
another huge chunk of fandom applying extraneous litmus tests of politics and
lifestyle – approving of some, disapproving of others – to both authors and
works in the course of assessing the quality of work. (And generally shutting
out the authors and works now represented by SP.) SP1 & SP2 demonstrated that this was
happening.
SP3 is happening because we – we-as-fandom-we – failed to
call for stopping the application of those litmus tests.
Voting No Award for anything other than the quality of the
work on the slate is continuing the application of those
tests. And voting No Award is not going
to stop SP4, because what we – we-as-SP, as far as I can speak for SP, which is
not very far - want is to be able to
push for recognition of the work we like – just like everyone else, with
everyone else – to get the awards we think it deserves.
And here’s why I reject the idea that No Award voting
slate-sponsored works is in the best interest of Fandom. Firstly, because even if a majority of fandom
agreed with that, all it does is cement the use of extraneous litmus tests in
the assessment of works. I reject the utility
of assessing works on the race or gender of the author, or on the skin color of
the protagonist, or on the faith system (or lack thereof) in the work. And I reject assessments based on who
recommended it to me, or on what webpage I first saw it.
Secondly, because No Awarding works based on visible,
known-to-you slates will only return us to the quasi-sub rosa conditions of 2012. Slates will go underground, passed from hand
to hand and not discussed openly – until someone wants to expose someone else
for ‘slating’. Or commit slander against
someone else. Or start a whisper
campaign against someone else.
I’ve been there, done that.
I don’t want that sort of thing affecting “the most prestigious award in
SFF.”
Let’s do what should have been done a decade ago, and reject
the application of extraneous litmus tests to the Hugo process, and all other
award processes.
Two notes:
1) I am not “equating” any authors mentioned by name in this
post. They each are singular persons who
have enraged different parts of Fandom. (There
are many horrible people in Fandom. Such
is the crooked timber of humanity.) I think there is some value in publicly
addressing assertions of the harm we do to each other. We are not required to like or approve or
tolerate all of each other, nor all that each other does.
I also think that when we have stooped to the point where we
take seriously the assertions by grown writers and artists that “someone wrote a
mean poem about me!!!!” we have gone well past the point where “harm” has any
legitimate definition, and a serious look at what we are considering “intolerable”
is in order.
2) I rejoice in the evolution of popular culture, fandom,
and internet discourse that now references to Nazis are not only considered
unserious, but required in any discussion of sufficient length. Take that, you genocidal monsters – you’re now the punchline
for every mockery of hysterical over-reaction, ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment