manifesta

A new SF anthology is coming out titled "Before They Were Giants." Of the 15 contributing authors, only 1 is a woman.

cassiphone's periodic table of SF women:

"One of the most frustrating responses I heard to the ‘Before they were Giants’ discussion, itself the latest in a long line of TOC rows, was the kneejerk “but there just aren’t as many women who are giants in the field.”

"[...] Because of course there were women. And it’s time to stop and think about the fact that the majority of authors considered “giants” in the history of field are male. Is it really because their books were better? Because what they were saying was more important? Because more people were talking about them, critiquing them, being influenced by them? Are we absolutely certain that none of those things could have been affected by societal pressures other than the pure “quality” of the text?"

The editor of the anthology responded here. (Also indicates that nonwhite and LGBTQ authors were not considered.)

strangedave on the lack of female representation in SF anthologies. Apparently and a few others have been criticized for criticizing the lack of diversity.

"And we are still having this conversation in the SF field after at least 35 years. If just politely helping people become aware of the issue worked, we wouldn't still be talking about it. And yet, it keeps happening, again and again. People are still putting together anthologies without even thinking about gender as an issue — and the only way to make them think about the issue is to make sure it isn't thought of as just a nicety, just another thing to try and improve that fellow editors will give you hints about (like font choice, or cover layout), but rather as something that is a major mistake if you get it wrong, something that will attract not mild criticism but anger. Anger is entirely appropriate. No one should expect not to get publicly called on their big mistakes, rather we should all endeavour not to make them, and learn to handle them gracefully when we do (as, to his credit, Sutter largely has)."

When fail is put on the interwebs, I consider it free game. If it's relatively isolated incident that doesn't impact a ton of people, I might contact the author(s) privately or on their own site and address the issue there. But this is an anthology that we're talking about; it's going to be on physical bookshelves and it's going to impact people who will never run across the discussions that are happening right now on the internet. That anthology is not going to come with a disclaimer that apologizes for its silencing of nonwhite, LGBTQ, and female SF writers. And so if the only option availiable is to discuss its inherent privilege all over the internet, then that's what I intend to do.

For additional reading: A partial podcast transcript about the debacle.

I usually don't comment on ebook-related issues. However, the Macmillan vs. Amazon kerfuffle (UPDATE: Amazon folds.) has prompted me to think more about the changing landscape of digital publishing lately. 

fictiontheory said it well:

"As far as the whole e-books thing goes? I'm sticking with paperbacks until the price comes way down and there's a reader that actually makes sense. Nothing on the market is even feasible. Sony's model can't handle temperatures under 30 degrees (and in NYC, that's bad), the Kindle is too expensive and Amazon can take your purchases back any time they want, and I'm not buying a damn iPhone just for the reader."

Right now, the market is absolutely unapproachable for people who can't afford to dish out $200+ a pop for an ereader that only accepts certain ebooks or doesn't let you actually own those ebooks or doesn't have the right lighting or ink or color or doesn't have a USB port or what-have-you. I have yet to find a single solid ereader that doesn't have any number of issues. The underlying point behind ebooks is that they are our 21st century solution for convenient reading. Ebooks are supposed to save paper, reduce production lag times, and be more easily accessible--but until they can do everything a print paperback can do and then some, I would not consider ebooks or ereaders to be anywhere near an investment.

So what would it take for me to invest in both?

A streamlined ereader that contained the following:

1. The ability to read and annotate ANY file, including .pdfs, regardless of who it was published by. Until I can read anything I damn well please on it, I'm sticking with my netbook and paperbacks.
2. The ability to link to wireless internet.
3. Color and pictures. Considering how expensive it is to include printed illustrations in books, I expect that their inclusion in ebooks of the future would increase their market value and garner additional attention.
5. Unlimited book storage, or at least the ability to store books on a USB. 
6. I want to own what I purchase. Period.

And finally, I'm not going to spend $9.99 OR $14.99 on a digital copy (that would be you, Macmillan) that could be revoked at any time (and you, Amazon) of a book I could otherwise get for $7.99 in print, by any author, in color, and without the headache. And this would be after spending at least $200 on the ereader.

It's just not practical.

If the price of average ereader was brought down by A LOT, and included all of the above, I might not mind paying more per ebook. But that would require the cooperation between publishers and the companies producing ereaders, and that doesn't seem to be what's occurring here, and instead it's the reader (as well as the authors) who get screwed.See related: SFWA author breaks down the debate. A long but detailed overview.

From Dear Author, on female sexuality and romance:
 

"For me, the critical issue is that as a society we continue to value a woman’s sexual status and we give value to women (or take it away) based on this status. Society justifies whether a woman deserved sexual assault or even rape based on whether she appears sexually demure enough."

Word.

Several commentors made the distinction between having random sex and embracing sexuality-- a distinction I don't agree with. Random hook-ups can be just as fulfilling as planned sex within a relationship, and the notion that sex should only occur within a relationship is simply the other side of the coin that says women should only have sex with a single partner and--as seen in many romance novels--that that partner must be their True Love. This isn't a rule that's placed on romance heroes, which is part of the point Janet tried to make.

Further, women or men who choose to pursue multi-partner relationships or random play are not necessarily psychologically driven by traumatic factors to do so. Some, yes. Others make the conscious decision to do so because that's what they're into.

There's also a lot of fail in the comments regarding the biological differences in the sexuality of men and women. Given the many alternative sexual practices, including but not limited to homosexuality, transsexuality, asexuality, and poly lifestyles, and that women and men are not nearly as different as we tend to believe (see Janet Shibley Hyde's Gender Similarity Hypothesis), I'm not convinced that men and women are driven by separate evolutionary forces. Culture is far more important in determining whether men sleep around more or women stick with a single partner. If men are lauded as studs for having sex with as many women as possible and women are chastised for having sex with more than one man, it is no longer biological forces that shape men and women's sexuality, but society.

That said, when discussing the supposed differences between men and women, there are other types of information aside from evolutionary psychology that can be applied. Try developmental or social cognitive theory. Anthropological and sociological sources would also be good. Ev psych ain't everything, y'all.

Nathan Bransford recently revisited one of his older posts on themes in queries.

"So you know how you spent four or more years in college learning about what books mean and how to analyze novels for hidden meaning, and where you learned that the best books are the ones with subtext upon which you can write a twenty page paper on the use of metaphor as an elucidation of the philosophical constructs of the protagonist's society?

Yeah. Forget all that."

I kept telling my English teachers in high school that Elie Wiesel's Night doesn't have as much symbology as they thought it did, but they never believed me. Here's my favorite part:

"...so don't tell me what your novel is about. Tell me what happens. And hopefully you've written a novel in which things actually do happen. Because I like novels where things happen. Happening is good."

In the past I have had pseudo-writer friends who think themselves quite literary and want to write stories about the struggles of humankind. And when I ask them about what happens in their book, they talk about the pain the MC endures, the major themes, and describes the plot in very, very vague terms. Which means they don't really describe the plot at all.

Not that themes are inherently bad. However, if the theme of the story isforbidden love, then the reader will pick up on itif you describe the story as "two star-crossed lovers fight to be together." This is a straight-forward explaination of what actually happens.


Over at Dear Author, today there's a special guest post on cultural appropriation. It's a really wonderful discussion on the intersection of culture, white privilege, and romance novels. I highly recommend reading the entire thing.

"Romance suffers from the same problem SF/F does. It’s very, very white. It would also seem that readers are far more okay with reading about vampires and werewolves and demons and angels than characters of colour. That is not okay. Think about what this means for a second. And imagine, if you will, being erased in stories or always in the background, a victim, evil, maybe the best friend or sidekick. . .but never the hero of your own story. This is what appropriation does to people of colour."

Unfortunately, I knew before clicking the link that there would be a ridiculous amount of racefail going down in the comments. I responded to a few in the thread, but here are some extra special gems:

Lisa: "What an annoying post. The only point of it that I can see is to try to make me feel guilty because I like to to read about white people in love. I’m sorry but I don’t have the energy to read with all my great sense of “white guilt” for the racial sins of the past, present and future."

You don't have the energy to read about your white privilege? If only nonwhites didn't have to live with your racism!

Amber: "And as a “white” person living in rural America, most of them DON’T apply to me."

Caligi: "My point is that these “white” romances don’t even represent white culture all that well either. I don’t totally accept the term “white privilege.” You think white people are really that different? White people are as diverse a group as Asians and black Americans. Some of us play the game and succeed in politics or business, and the rest of us are shut out."

The majority of the comments were insightful. However, there was at least one occasion when a person of color made a statement about racism and white privilege and was informed that they were off-topic.

There are days like today where I just want to walk away from other people's ignorance. Unfortunately, there are people who don't have the option to simply walk away.

Marjorie M. Liu made heads roll a few days ago in her post regarding Roman Polanski. It's good to see such a prominent author speaking up. Carolyn Jewel did, too. (Edit 10/8/09: Amanda Downumhas also chimed in.) For those unaware, Roman Polanski is a U.S. fugitive currently undergoing criminal court in Switzerland to be extradicted to the U.S. to face trial for his offenses. Some people have even risen to Polanski's defense, neatly ignoring the fact that he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.

As someone relatively familiar with these issues, I'd like to address some of the language I've seen being used.

From TulsaWorld:

"Roman Polanski lost the first round Tuesday in his battle to avoid extradition to the U.S. for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl."

An adult does not have sex with a 13-year-old girl. Sexual assault laws vary across the U.S. regarding how many years can separate two minors for sex to be legal, but in every single state it is illegal and considered to be no less than rape for an adult to penetrate a 13-year-old girl. It is not sex. It is rape. Referring to it as anything other than such is to demean the levity of the assault.

I'd also like to note that, regardless of age, it is also illegal and considered rape if one or more of the parties involved is intoxicated because it is impossible for someone under the influence to grant consent. This is also standard in every state.

Polanski plied her with alcohol. Why there is even any discussion after this point, I don't know.

From Carolyn Jewel:

"I really thought we'd moved past the days when we blamed women for the violence committed against them. I really did. I didn't think anyone in America today could stand up and blame a 13 year old girl for the actions of a 43 year old man who gave her alcohol and drugs before he got around to having sex with her -- because, damn, she kept saying no!"

Good entry overall. However, in a nutshell: we as a society are no where NEAR over blaming women for the violence committed against them. Victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and rape apologism is on going, and it occurs among our peers, our workers, our friends, our family, our police, our government. In a world (and specifically, this country) that believes people get what's coming to them, the first question we ask is not, "Is there anything I can do to help you?" but instead, "What did you do to provoke him?" This is not the first case of a child molester, but it is a case that has been under public scrutiny because of the perpetrator's fame, the length since the rape, and his flight from the country.

Let me make this clear, folks: If the perpetrator had been anything other than famous, this uproar would be not be occurring.

There are thousands of women, men, and children who have had acts of violence committed against them, many of whom do not have their perpetrator's fame to speak for them. Thousands.

What's sickening that it's taken the rape of a child by someone famous for people to begin to realize that no, HELL no, things are not okay here. When the news of Chris Brown's assault and battery of Rihana manifested last Spring, people pointed fingers, tsked, told Chris Brown never to do such an awful thing again, and promptly dropped it. Over half of teens polled blamed Rihanna. Only when it's so clear-cut as to include a child, and alcohol, and a desperate flight from the country does the media consider it sensational enough to cover it, for people to sit up and pay attention.

It doesn't matter how many times she said no, or if she said no at all. Consent is not granted in the absence of the no. Consent is not granted even if she says yes, but is still intoxicated or underage. Consent was not only NOT granted, but she was not ABLE to grant consent, period.