Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Over the weekend, I had another clueless dude try to give me crap for “working so hard to manufacture outrage,” and for always “choosing to be offended.” It’s a tired and unoriginal refrain, but I’m going to try to do something a little different this time. I’m going to agree with clueless dude, at least to an extent. Because he’s right. For me, a great deal of the things I write about, and the fact that I’m upset by some of what I see in the SF/F community, these are choices.

A few of the things I’ve chosen to be offended about lately…

  • Big name authors publicly mocking and belittling people for asking for representation in SF/F.
  • The rewriting of history to present last year’s SFWA Bulletin mess as being about a single cover as opposed to an ongoing problem, one that culminated with two big name authors using the Bulletin as a platform to accuse those who disagree with them of being “liberal fascists” and anonymous cowards.
  • A major convention belittling concerns about sexual harassment and refusing to implement a policy … and then minimizing and belittling the experience of multiple individuals who reported being sexually harassed at that convention.
  • The backlash against a Hugo host being transformed into a factually incorrect narrative that rakes an individual woman over the coals in major media outlets for the crime of expressing her fear and anger.

Generally, when folks recycle the accusation that people are looking for things to be offended by, the word “offended” is used as a minimizing tactic. It suggests overly fragile and sensitive individuals with bruised feelings. A more accurate choice would be “pissed off,” “hurt,” or “sick of this crap.” Kameron Hurley uses the term “rage” when explaining that the anger doesn’t come from a minor, isolated incident.

The thing is, most of these incidents don’t hurt me directly. Representation in SF/F? As a straight, white, American male, I’m incredibly overrepresented in my genre. Conventions that don’t take steps to reduce sexual harassment? I’ve been harassed a total of once in more than a decade of congoing, and it’s not something I’m particularly worried about happening to me again. The threats, hatred, and vitriol aimed at women online and in the real world? Hey, it’s not coming toward me, so who cares?

When you’re not the one being hurt, you might not even notice the problem. You might decide it’s all blown out of proportion. Or maybe you admit that yeah, there might be a problem here, but you blow it off because the solution would inconvenience you in some way, or make you uncomfortable.

When you see someone saying they’re hurt or afraid, you can choose to mock that person. You can choose to ignore their concerns. You can choose to blow them off by saying they’re manufacturing outrage and looking for reasons to be offended, as if pain and anger and fear are just another hobby, like collecting spores, molds, and fungus. You can choose to ignore the evidence, to disbelieve the repeated stories of ongoing harassment and the countless people speaking out about specific incidents that make them feel unwelcome and unwanted in your community. You can choose to interpret anger as “bullying,” and calls for inclusion as “political correctness run wild.”

You could also choose to listen. You can choose to believe that when someone says, “Hey, this is hurting me,” they’re telling the truth. You can look around at how racially homogenous most conventions are and believe the people telling you why they feel unwelcome, instead of dismissing it as a coincidence or making up falsehoods about how “those people” just don’t read or don’t care about SF/F. You can recognize that just because a problem might not directly affect you, that doesn’t mean it’s unimportant.

You’re right. I choose to be offended angry. I see people talking about how finding someone like them in a SF/F story literally saved their life. And then I see people responding with mockery and derision to calls for broader representation. I see people who have traditionally been ignored and silenced raising their voices to speak about their experiences, only to have those experiences dismissed as “butthurt” by those who haven’t had to live through them.

When I choose to be angry, and to speak out about things, it’s because I see people hurting.

No, that’s not quite right. It’s because I see the that the things we’re doing are hurting people. That pain isn’t imaginary. It’s not a cover to try to take over the genre and control everyone else, as one commenter suggested. It’s real. And I’ve got to believe that if more people could get over their discomfort and defensiveness and just listen, they might see it too. They might even be able to help solve some of the problems.

Basically, when people talk about something that’s hurting them, you can choose to care. Or you can choose not to.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.


( 40 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 11th, 2014 02:08 pm (UTC)
I love this, because I believe that allies choosing to get upset, and to work for change, is one of the biggest reasons why change happens. (Affected groups doing so are perhaps THE biggest reason, but it still helps immeasurably when someone who's not being victimized chooses to step up and say "That's wrong, and it needs to stop.)

Insisting that there are people choosing to be offended when they *are* in the affected group is like me claiming someone chooses to complain that I kicked them in the shins, because my shins don't hurt and therefore there is no widespread sore shins problem.

Interestingly, all of the people I have ever seen who've said this was an issue of hypersensitive offense takers looking for reasons to get attention... have themselves had the most *amazingly* overwrought responses to the slightest criticism. Presumably if they think the rest of us should have thicker skins, so should they?!
Mar. 11th, 2014 03:33 pm (UTC)
href="http://thesweepblog.com/2014/03/10/the-public-voice-of-women-and-class-participation/"> This which happened yesterday seems to be a first-class example of the phenomenon you describe about the people complaining about hypersensitive observers having a more overwrought response than those they are complaining about.
Mar. 11th, 2014 06:48 pm (UTC)
Hmm. I admit, that seems like a pretty reasonable blog post to me; I think I'm missing the outraged responses (or the comments have been moderated?).
Mar. 11th, 2014 09:28 pm (UTC)
Sorry - that c&p was an accident.
Mar. 11th, 2014 06:29 pm (UTC)
Yeah -- "butthurt" would be the term I'd be likely to apply to the overwrought response, not the original complaint.
Mar. 11th, 2014 06:47 pm (UTC)
Ditto. Though I don't say it *to* them anymore, as they tend to take offense at that. ;)
Mar. 11th, 2014 09:27 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry: I seem to have copied and pasted the wrong link. This was what I intended to copy.
Mar. 12th, 2014 12:47 am (UTC)
No problem; it was actually a really good article to read, even if it did leave me wondering if I needed my outrage meter recalibrated. :)

As for what you meant to link to... wow. Just, wow. I totally agree, that's an appalling overreaction, from someone who's complaining that *other* people are too sensitive!
Mar. 11th, 2014 02:25 pm (UTC)

And I think one of the reasons I choose to get angry about some of the things in the SF/F community, is because I'm very proud of my genre. I love SF/F/H/Speculative fiction. When I was a young girl in a small midwestern town just starting to think 'I wonder' about my sexuality and gender and all that, the books that talked TO ME ABOUT THOSE ISSUES in a safe, welcoming way, were Elizabeth A. Lynn's series and Theodore Sturgeon's "A World Well Lost" which I read in collection (and was later blown away to discover its publication date was something like 1953.) With those and others, I saw my genre as cutting edge and inclusive, because we had Delaney and Bulter and that seemed HUGE back in those days... you know?

And when I hit things like what got said in the Malzberg/Resnick conversations in the SFWA bulletin, it feels like a personal slap in the face because my first reaction is always, "We're not like that! That's not *my* SF/F!" And those 'good ol' days of oppression' were actually the ones in which Sturgeon wrote ME a love story about being queer.

So, yeah, that's my long way of saying, "Yeah. Me, too."
Mar. 11th, 2014 05:54 pm (UTC)
Yes. We're angry because we care about this genre and community! Because we love it, and we want it to be better. And that means acknowledging and working to fix problems, not ignoring them.
Mar. 11th, 2014 02:57 pm (UTC)
Not much to add; just wanted to say: so much THIS.

Thanks for being an ally, Jim. :)
Mar. 11th, 2014 03:11 pm (UTC)
It’s because I see the that the things we’re doing are hurting people.


I've seen instances of people working hard to create outrage where the supposed victims didn't seem to be upset. I've also seen people who worked hard at being offended by all sorts of things that were pretty innocuous and not intended to cause harm, and people who were so angry that they twisted anything and everything to feed their anger. The things you've been talking about don't fall into any of those categories. They're all about real people feeling real pain over the actions of and choices made by others. Real people feeling real pain is something that shouldn't be ignored.
Mar. 11th, 2014 03:18 pm (UTC)
I share your anger and concerns as outlined above.

I am also angry and concerned by comments I've seen this past week dismissing the valid concerns authors have about the wider impact of the negative portrayal of all this in the UK media.

When attempts to point out, however mildly, that what's some people's hobby is actually other people's livelihood, have been greeted with the equivalent of a shrug, a sneer and 'your problem, not mine.'

I've seen it plainly said that fandom is for fans, not creators.

This reminds me of the backlash we've seen several times in past months against writers who've attempted to engage with reviewers - even when that attempt to open a dialogue has (initally at least) been perfectly civil.

This reminds me of hostile encounters I had when I started going to conventions in 2000 or so. Not many encounters but it only takes one aggressive fan calling you a 'filthy pro' who should know they're only welcome at a convention on sufferance, to make a thoroughly unpleasant impact.

I thought that was in the past. Now I'm not so sure.

This past week, I've talked to writers, male and female, who are feeling they have no permission to speak up, otherwise they will end up as targets of online hostility, for having inadvertently encroached on 'fan space'.

I've spoken to writers, male and female, who are seriously wondering what conventions and fandom have to offer them, if they're going to have to watch every word they say, and then get dragged into some PR nightmare regardless, all at their personal and not-inconsiderable expense.

This concerns me.
Mar. 11th, 2014 05:57 pm (UTC)
I got some pushback and criticism around the Best Fan Writer Hugo a few years ago, but that's pretty much the only time I felt like people were trying to shut me out of being a fan because I was also a pro. (Well, that and one panel with someone I'd describe as an old-school fan with a bit of a chip on her shoulder.)

If it's something you're comfortable talking about, can you share a little more about what you're seeing and hearing about in terms of writers feeling threatened in "fan spaces"?
Mar. 11th, 2014 07:28 pm (UTC)
I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it 'threatening' behaviour, but I've talked to writers lately who feel pretty damn unwelcome in 'fan space'. It's hard to go into details without encroaching on private conversations though.

Something that's in the public domain - the twitterstorm that blew up around Ben Aaronovitch attempting to explain himself/clarify a point in a review of his work on BookSmugglers blog was pretty unedifying all round. And in between the extreme and at times aggressive arguing on both sides, in the middle a good few writers I know were silently observing and thinking, y'know, I'll just keep my mouth shut and not engage online or in person at events, if that's what dealing with 'fandom' means.

The charmer that operates under the pseudonym 'Requires Hate' prompts similar responses.

Consequently writers like myself have a hard time insisting that these are the exceptions rather than the rule when it comes to interacting with fandom, when the loud and aggressive voices are the ones that get heard, seen, retweeted and all the rest of it, and moderate opinion and reasoned discussion gets drowned out by the noise.

When I started out fifteen years ago, engaging with a hostile review was a bad idea back then - but that argument would stay on that particular comment thread. Nowadays it gets to be A Thing, with all sorts of other folk having their say.
Mar. 12th, 2014 01:21 pm (UTC)
As I said above, I think it's sad if we're splitting into 'writers' and 'fans' (when _a specific_ book is under discussion this is inevitable, but at that point the split is between author/creator and readers/critics). But I've also seen many places where published writers, not-yet-published writers, occasional writers, people who don't write original fiction, and people who write nothing other than blogposts are engaging in discussions, and the person who created the original content was part of that disussion, so I don't think it's impossible - just that argueing with reviewers is pointless. (I understand the sting of scathing Amazon reviews, I does, preciousss).

the loud and aggressive voices are the ones that get heard, seen, retweeted and all the rest of it, and moderate opinion and reasoned discussion gets drowned out by the noise.

But in a way we're back to the 'tone argument'. Sometimes people feel they need to be angry to be heard in the first place. Sometimes people have just been at the receiving end of a lot of agression and microagression and GET FUCKING ANGRY in response - which is not necessarily fair at the person who catches that blast. But I think it is part of the problem that people with privilege can state something calmly (and/or lightheartedly) and be heard, while the people who are habitually silenced and erased from public record are being dismissed however they express themselves - if they're calm they're being shouted over, if they're stating their hurt, they're hysterical or looking for offense, if they're angry they're not worth listening to. In a way it's a lose-lose situation for almost everybody... apart from the people in power (who *also* often shut down or shout down discussions.)

And while this is not a universal cure, I think an important step is to create a space in which concerns are heard. When people no longer feel a need to defend themselves, engagement becomes easier. At this point, it will be easier to tell the people who were simply angry from the bullies who use anger not to get heard but to silence others.

Edited at 2014-03-12 01:22 pm (UTC)
Mar. 15th, 2014 01:29 am (UTC)
except there's a difference between being loud and angry and being loud and angry while being an asshole. Being on the receiving end of oppression does NOT give anyone the right to be an asshole in return
Mar. 13th, 2014 11:26 pm (UTC)
I think there is an important distinction to be made here, though. It wasn't that Ben was an author who participated in a fannish discussion; he responded to a review of his own work which included the reviewer talking about things that made her uncomfortable. I read it at the time, and pulled it up again just now; he came off, to me, defensive of his work and dismissive of the reviewer. In the process, he defended his intentions as an author, and dismissed the reader's interpretations (and by extension, insinuated that she was wrong to be uncomfortable). That was just the first comment from him, and it devolved from there.

IME, authors are welcome to participate in fannish communities online, but it's really best to avoid discussion on your own work. Readers feel very weird about an author jumping into the fray, and many feel like they then have to defend themselves for their own interpretation. I think that Ben could have responded and not gotten the backlash he did if he hadn't been defensive. I say this with my author hat on.

I think some parallels can be drawn between the reader/reviewer/author situation and the current SFWA situation with Jonathan Ross the other day. Folks have mentioned Ross should have been aware of the recent controversies in SFF/SFWA; so should authors be aware of controversies between readers and authors. When you have authors such as Anne Rice trying to shut down readers (sometimes successfully) who dislike their work, or even not dislike it but are troubled by some parts of the story... it's something that is very much a kneejerk for reader/reviewer/bloggers, just as there are kneejerk issues with SFF/SFWA.

I've seen plenty of authors have great relationships with their fans, and their fans love them all the more for it. Jeannie Lin in romance (who writes incredibly awesome Tang Dynasty Chinese romances and is well worth looking up) is very active on many blogs, and responds to reviews of her own work. To my knowledge, there has never been an issue, because she is never defensive, but kind and gracious.

I think there is also the matter of "reader space." Review blogs and the like are reader space. It isn't that authors aren't welcome, but if they come in and are defensive, the reaction is not going to be good -- and nor should it. I don't necessarily agree with the intensity of the reaction (I think people can go way too far), but I understand the upset. Readers want to be able to discuss their problems with a book, and things that made them uncomfortable, just as much as things they like, without the author coming in and saying "But that's NOT WHAT I MEANT". It may not be what they meant, but if people are talking about it and upset by it, then it's something that can be read in the text.

We are seeing more and more of "Death of the Author" in regards to book reviews and discussions, which I have mixed feelings on. I personally believe in "reader space", DotA applies totally. In the author's own space (and there are authors who have their own discussion groups, forums, communities, etc, where fans gather to interact with the author), the author is free to state their intent. I think things would have gone down very differently if Ben had, instead of commenting in reader space, said on his own site or blog, something along the lines of "I've been reading reviews discussing *this issue* in *this book*. I'd like to talk about it from my perspective" and then elaborate on what was meant. The fans will find it, and the reviewers probably will hear of it, too. I have seen VERY different reactions when this was handled in such a way.

Mar. 13th, 2014 11:28 pm (UTC)
I think some authors have the idea that a negative discussion of their work will put readers off, and thus they need to defend their story and their intentions in writing it. And, while I can understand that on a gut level, I think that's the wrong approach. There are a lot of books out there, and if it was a book I was considering reading anyway, I will look out for other reviews and make my decision as to whether or not to buy based on that. With my reader hat on, I'm much less likely to bother if the author comes storming in. (As an example, I heard a lot of issues of cultural appropriation with the Japanese steampunk novel by Jay Kristoff; I chose to read it anyway. I enjoyed the book, but still wholeheartedly agree with the criticisms. Bad reviews are not going to scare me off a book I'm interested in.)

And if a reader decides it's not for them, so what? I know, very well, that authors are under a lot of pressure to sell, but this is not the way to do it. Honestly, I would've considered reading Ben's books despite the negative reviews but his behavior put me off far more than the review did in the first place.

I get very sad seeing that authors are afraid to interact with fans, because (for the most part), it's not that fans don't want to interact with authors. It's that fans want their own place to discuss without fear of authorial intrusion. I've seen a great many authors have webspaces where they are reachable, and interact with their fans, and they do quite well. They needn't search out reviews to comment; that is incredibly hard to do well, and many readers have said they feel less free to speak amongst themselves if they know the author is there, reading, and participating. Some do it well enough to not feel intrusive to the readers, but that is difficult, and it's not something I would suggest (Jeannie Lin does it well, but she's very good at knowing when to comment).

Just as we authors have our own spaces and communities to commingle amongst ourselves, so should readers. And there is still shared space; I, as an author, frequently comment and squee about other authors' books, and nobody looks askance. I participate in fandoms for things I love (and dearly wish there were more book fandoms, because there are few things I love more than discussing a book I adore), and it's known I'm an author, and I'm fully welcome.

I'll admit I'm a young'un compared to some of the SFF crowd; I'm just about to turn 29. Current online fandom is an entirely different beast from convention fandom, and from usenet fandom. On top of that, there's a major difference between reviewers/bloggers and community fandom. When there is a thread or such to squee about a book, I see people being ecstatic to have the author come in and talk with them about their book, and "behind the scenes" of the things they loved. That's still very welcome.

I think part of the problem may be authors being unaware of how current fandom operates, and also as I mentioned earlier, being unaware of past controversies that color every authorial interaction with regards to negative or problematic reviews. I don't think that it's an elaborate set of rules to follow, but it is IMO different from what I've heard of fandom of the past. I'm thinking that's probably a lot of what is confusing and worrying authors.

(I'm SO sorry, I didn't mean for this to get so long. Obviously, I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, plus, I'm medicated and my meds when they hit like this make me ramble. Please don't think I'm being hyper-critical of you, either; I think that there are many reasons behind this issue, and I'm trying to explain them as best I can... unfortunately, I can't do it concisely!)
Mar. 11th, 2014 06:14 pm (UTC)
One point at which I see fans pushing back is when pros emphasize their status as pros. This is actually one of the things i like best about SF fandom, that _everybody is a fan_ and I've seen (and heard of) a lot of Big Name Writers squee with the best of everybody else over a different writer, sometimes mutually. A writer's conference where the pros sit on one side of a barrier (behind tables for panels, and otherwise in a pro-only space) and the fans are on the other would hold very little attraction to me.

When pros say that they ought to be paid for conventions is another point where I've seen fan annoyance. Not GOH, but ordinary attendance and panels. As if everybody else there *isn't* paying to get there, and *doesn't* take time off work, and as if fans and non-writer panelists _aren't_ adding value to a convention, and as if the pros don't have the option of enjoying themselves attending the convention.
Mar. 12th, 2014 09:12 am (UTC)
Ah, now this is an interesting one. Knowing Green Knight in real life, having shared companionable cups of coffee, I know this comment is an honest observation, no subtext, no hostility.

However I have witnessed a conversation (I use the term loosely) at a convention where much the same words were delivered with considerable 'who the hell do you think you are, to come in here and you act like your **** don't stink?' attitude from a fan, when a writer raised the subject of authors being paid for attendances...

The thing is, I happened to know that particular writer was coming in from, and referencing, an entirely different conversation, which is ongoing in UK professional writer circles, where there is considerable annoyance and growing pushback against literary festivals with massive corporate sponsors, who still insist that jobbing writers turn up and work for nothing, begrudging even paying expenses when that writer is talking to an audience of a hundred or more who've all paid £10-£12 a ticket for a commercial event - when these same festivals nevertheless pay hundreds if not thousands of pounds in appearance fees to media personalities and other 'big names' at the same events.

The fan was entirely unaware of that important and valid debate going on in circles they were no part of. And that one individual going to DEFCON ONE in zero time flat meant there was then no realistic chance of having a considered conversation about the considerable differences between a standard literary festival and a convention which would have clarified things for that writer.

Which pretty much parallels the hostile response to Seanan McGuire from folk outside fandom who know nothing of the ongoing debates and initiatives to challenge sexism etc within SF&F.

So we were left with a situation where a writer felt that 'fandom' was a hostile, unwelcoming place - and a fan felt confirmed in a belief that 'writers' are arrogant and entitled.

This instant assumption of the worst interpretation behind someone's words - and their application as sweeping generalisations - is massively unhelpful - on both sides and for all involved.

For instance, I've had a few conversations with writers, male and female, these past ten days who absolutely accept the sincerity of Seanan McGuire's feelings on this, who agree without question that she should be free to express her opinions - but who would also like to discuss what other and perhaps more effective ways of expressing such opinions might be available, since as clearly evidenced, Twitter was far less than ideal.

But those writers sure as hell aren't going to say a word, because the latest wave of blog commentary has convinced them (rightly or wrongly) that expressing any opinion which could and doubtless would then be interpreted as less than 100% support of Seanan will see the 'Fandom' Internet fall on their head.

All of which concerns me.
Mar. 12th, 2014 01:56 pm (UTC)
OUCH. That sounds as if both sides came into the 'conversation' in the middle, and the author caught a blast not intended for them. And the next time someone innocently brings up the topic with either of them, *they'll* get a strong reaction they didn't expect, and so on. Once you have the context, the writer's reaction sounds immanently reasonable. (When people pay money to see you, and without you, nobody would turn up, you should not have to work for free. That should really go without stating. Thankfully, apart from one short-lived aberration, I am not aware of SF cons adopting that model.)

[writers] who would also like to discuss what other and perhaps more effective ways of expressing such opinions might be available, since as clearly evidenced, Twitter was far less than ideal.

Frankly, I don't think that Twitter was any worse than any other medium. I've read some of the vicious battles carried out in 19th century letters-to-the-editor, and no, nothing new under the sun at all other than the speed of reactions. (Do we need to assume that letter writers of old thought harder before insulting their opponents? I'm not entirely convinced.) And, really, an immediate reaction of 'WTF' from a number of unrelated people (people with different concerns, at that) was a useful datapoint. Ultimately we need both spaces where people can have conversations with likeminded folks (because that often brings out fine detail) and conversations with differently-thinking people (because that brings out different and equally important issues). And all conversations ought to be from a point of assumption of goodwill until proven otherwise... but as to how to achieve that? No idea.
Mar. 13th, 2014 11:40 pm (UTC)
I'll definitely agree that Twitter was a less than ideal medium. I think that a blog post (and a link to the post in Twitter) would've been a better medium, because it would've allowed for more nuance than there was. I personally am 100% supportive of Seanan's statements, and if I were in her position, I would've felt the exact same way, but I don't think Twitter was the right choice.

I'm a little frustrated, TBH, by the flock of authors to Twitter. As evidenced above by my massive novel-in-comments, I don't always think concisely. 140 characters is NOT enough, and multiple messages... it's easy to miss one, or to be overwhelmed. I have a great deal of difficulty, personally, keeping up with it. I don't have THAT many people followed, compared to some, and if I look away for five minutes, my backlog is near unmanageable! I'm a member of an amazing romance writers' community (I write SFF w/ romantic elements, usually queer :D ) but I have yet to find a comparable SFF community that doesn't require SFWA credits, which I don't meet because I'm a digital author (by choice; my medical conditions are stress-exacerbated, and NY deadlines would just about kill me) and I tend to think in terms of novels, not short stories, so the short story route doesn't really work. So, if I want to interact with other authors, Twitter seems to be the place for it, and... woe. That is my Twitter rant, lol.
Mar. 11th, 2014 11:33 pm (UTC)

I've seen it plainly said that fandom is for fans, not creators.

I find it incredibly difficult to understand the mentality behind this attitude. Have these people not considered that without the creators there'd be nothing to be a fan of.

Does not compute.
Mar. 11th, 2014 03:22 pm (UTC)
I agree that offended is often the wrong word, and that it is commonly used to minimize real complaints. People don't get upset over these issues because they're offended; they get upset because they feel excluded. And that's a very different thing, a very real injustice.

We should not allow the debate to be framed in terms of offensiveness vs. inoffensiveness. That's not the issue, and never has been.
Mar. 11th, 2014 03:56 pm (UTC)
Well said. BTW, I have a book recommendation for you: IF WE SHADOWS, by D. E. Atwood. I'm halfway through it. So far, really, really well done YA about gender identity--and Shakespeare.
Mar. 11th, 2014 05:54 pm (UTC)
"...really, really well done YA about gender identity--and Shakespeare."

I am officially intrigued :-)
Mar. 12th, 2014 05:32 pm (UTC)
Oh, Jim, you have GOT to read this book. It even has some very subtle magic.
Mar. 11th, 2014 04:35 pm (UTC)
This line stood out for me: "they’re manufacturing outrage and looking for reasons to be offended, as if pain and anger and fear are just another hobby..." It stood out because I, for one, have internalized that line of reasoning, from as far back as I can remember. To the extent that I often don't really believe I feel what I feel, even as it's happening, and tell myself to stop being a drama queen. To have that written out, by an over-represented white male, with the connotation that, no, that's not what people do, is incredibly comforting.
Mar. 11th, 2014 05:51 pm (UTC)
there should be something for everyone in our genre..and all are welcome if they respect everyone elses rights and boundaries.

I would hate to see the fannish version of the Tea Party (and what would that be called?) take over.
Mar. 11th, 2014 09:08 pm (UTC)
My first thought was "Why would that be a bad thing? I love their music!"

And then I realized that really dates me, as The Tea Party the band has been defunct for a number of years... and the US political group/movement/? is what you're referring to. :P

I think having a Grand Bazaar-themed party at a con would be awesome. :)
(for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNIYUQIwqs )
Mar. 11th, 2014 09:10 pm (UTC)
Regarding the serious point in your comment, yes that would be a very bad thing. (fannish version of the Tea Party)
Mar. 11th, 2014 05:57 pm (UTC)
To phrase something I've used in WoW general chat a little less crudely ... "butthurt" is the understandable and correct response to being forcibly sodomised. Someone who wishes to not know that others are butthurt would do well to pitch in and help protect those others from having to take it up the rear against their will in the first place.
Mar. 11th, 2014 06:38 pm (UTC)
Well said, Jim.
Mar. 11th, 2014 11:52 pm (UTC)
*savage little grin*
I was reading this post just before choofing off to work when mine wife came up behind me and started reading it over my shoulder.
There was a lot of agreement from us both.

The fact that your writing is realy good AND inclusive is actually one the the major reasons why for my birthday I got a kindle. So I could stuff it full of the books I've missed since all of our decent local bookstores have folded.
You included us in Codex Born. Possibly to close for comfort...It is taking a bit longer to read than anticipated because it gets so close I have to put it down sometimes.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is thanks. That you write stuff that makes us go "holy shit we're not alone, someone gets it without subjecting us to dogs in the night" is awesome.
Mar. 12th, 2014 03:14 pm (UTC)
Thank you! Or, you're welcome. Both, I guess :-)
Mar. 12th, 2014 01:35 am (UTC)
Well said, Jim.
Mar. 12th, 2014 02:48 am (UTC)
Beautifully put, Jim. :) This needed to be said. People are frustrated and sad about unsafe, hostile behaviour in SFF. Those who say "they choose to be offended" are minimising valid and important concerns.
Mar. 14th, 2014 02:40 pm (UTC)
As always, thank you.
For choosing to care.
Mar. 15th, 2014 10:20 am (UTC)
Thank you, Jim, for continuing to add your voice to ours, and standing up to be counted. If some have to choose to be offended in order to draw attention to things that others have no choice but to be hurt by, then may we all make the right choice every time.
( 40 comments — Leave a comment )


Jim C. Hines

My Books


Latest Month

February 2017
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow