Choosing “Sides”
“I am not doing it because I was pressured by anyone either way or on any ‘side.'” -[Author]
“[Author] is everything any good leftist could ever want in a Hugo nominee, and they got hounded off the ballot by the LEFT.” -Brad Torgersen
#
I’m conflicted about starting this post with those particular quotes. A handful of people have withdrawn their names from the Hugo ballot, and have asked to be left out of the anger and arguments, which I can certainly understand. I removed the name of the author in question because I don’t want them getting dragged into my rant here. But at the same time, this pair of quotes is one of the best illustrations of something I’ve been frustrated with for years.
I am so damn tired of the insistence on shoving everyone and everything into an artificial “Us vs. Them” framework. The Puppies thing is just the latest example. The only clearly defined “side” in this mess is the puppies themselves, and even that’s a slippery argument. Is Theodore Beale of the Rabid Puppies on the same side as Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia? Correia suggests they are: “Look at it like this. I’m Churchill. Brad is FDR. We wound up on the same side as Stalin.” But what about the commenters? Can people support some of what the puppies said they wanted — say, greater awareness of tie-in work in Hugo nominations — without having to swear allegiance to all things rabid?
What about the people on the respective puppy ballots? Is Sheila Gilbert of DAW on the puppies’ “side”? (Given that she has basically zero online presence, and that I’ve chatted with her about this, I can state for a fact that she was not contacted about being on any slate, nor did she know anything about it.) What about the creators of The Flash? Mike Resnick was on the slate, but has spoken out against the kind of bloc voting the puppies represented. (I’m unable to find the link where I read his comments on this, however.) Does choosing not to remove yourself from the slate or ballot mean you’re in lockstep agreement with Beale, Torgersen, and Correia?
I keep coming across commentary and arguments that assume you have to be either pro-puppy or anti-puppy. In broader discussions, you’re either us or you’re the enemy. Left or Right. Puppy or CHORF. Lately, I’m seeing more accusations of blacklists and gatekeepers and people’s careers being hurt because of their politics or beliefs or whatever, because some publishers are for Us and some are for Them, and you can’t succeed in this business without swearing allegiance to the Evil Gun Nuts of Baen or the Evil Tree-hugging Lib’ruls of Tor.
To be honest, that last bit is funny as hell. Baen publishes folks like Eric Flint and Lois McMaster Bujold. Jim Baen wanted to buy my very first book, and Baen continues to buy my shorter work for some of their anthologies. Then there’s Tor, which publishes Rabid Puppy darling John C. Wright, as well as Hugo award-winning author Orson Scott Card.
The “Us vs. Them” framework does nobody any favors. It’s simplistic, childish thinking. Pointing out that a particular author is a homophobic bigot based on things he’s said? Fair enough. Accusing anyone who likes said author’s work of being a homophobic bigot? Sorry, no. Torgersen and Correia have gotten a lot of ugliness hurled their way in all this — some of it has been truthful, and right on par with what they’ve been hurling, but some has been absolutely over-the-line and unacceptable.
I’ve talked to conservative friends who’ve described various microaggressions and flat-out attacks toward them and/or their religious beliefs. I’ve been attacked for beliefs I don’t have, simply because someone assumed I was on the other side. More recently, when I criticized the Sad Puppy slate on Twitter, I had someone accuse me of being a child molester. I spoke out against GamerGate and got a doxxing threat in my email within the hour. Then there’s the editor on the Sad Puppy ballot who publicly blacklisted and badmouthed me and a few other authors for not being on his “side”…
And I don’t get a fraction of the abuse, harassment, threats, and worse that people in more marginalized groups do, simply for daring to exist and speak out. Simply because people decided they were “Them,” and therefore fair targets for abuse and hate.
I know some of the Sad Puppies desperately want there to be some kind of Social Justice Warrior Conspiracy that’s been manipulating the Hugos and persecuting them for years, because that creates a simple narrative with them as the feisty rebels striking a blow against the Evil Empire. But there’s been zero evidence for it. Correia himself said he’d audited the Hugos a few years back and found no sign of anything suspect.
Are there systemic problems that permeate the genre, and our cultures in general? Of course. Malinda Lo has done a tremendous amount of work and analysis of diversity in fiction and the overall lack thereof. That doesn’t mean everyone has to be drafted into one of two like-minded armies of Pro-Diversity and Anti-Diversity warriors.
Some of the problems are linguistic. Hugo-nominated author Eric James Stone said recently, “In my opinion, accusing someone of racism is one of the severest charges one can make against someone’s moral character.” I disagree. I’ve absorbed the racism, sexism, and homophobia of my culture for almost as long as I’ve existed. I blogged about that a bit back in 2010. It took me years to recognize my own problematic attitudes, and to start actively working to change them. If I say I believe someone is being racist, I don’t see it as the severest charge against their character; I see it as recognizing we’re all imperfect beings who should be working to do better. (I recommend reading Stone’s entire post. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he has some good and valid points.)
MCA Hogarth talks about fear of being attacked for being one of Them, of deprecation and insults and criticism that generalize from “This individual is a nasty, bigoted human being” to “Christians and Republicans are the Enemy.” Once again, I don’t agree with everything she says — I’m particularly skeptical that anyone has the power to destroy a career with one Tweet — but I also think the fears she talks about are real and valid and worth thinking about. In many contexts in the U.S., to be Christian or Republican is to be the majority. To have power. But contexts vary, and this isn’t always the case in SF/F and fandom.
Part of my anger at Torgersen and Correia is because I feel like they deliberately encouraged this Us vs. Them mentality in order to win support and votes. They invented an evil cabal of “Them,” then rallied people to join their side against this fictitious enemy. Which only increases the abuse and the hatred. And please note: I’m angry at them as individuals, not because they’re conservative, or because of their views on gun control, or because they might have a different religious belief than I do. I’m angry because whatever problems were out there, these two individuals actively made them worse, and they hurt a great many people in the process. Themselves included.
Fandom is not two distinct sides. It’s a bunch of people who like things in a really big genre, a genre that has guns and spaceships and dinosaurs and dragons and magic and manly men and genderfluid protagonists and grittiness and erotica and humor and hard-core feminism and sexism and racism and hope and stereotypes and anger and messages and politics and fluff and were-jaguars and superheroes and so much more.
Criticism is not war. Choosing not to read or support things you don’t like isn’t censorship. Liking something problematic doesn’t make you a bad person.
We’re not perfect. And we’re going to keep arguing and fighting amongst ourselves. It’s part of being human. It’s part of being a fan. We’re really freaking passionate about the things we love. (If you diss Season Four of Legend of Korra, then hell yeah I’m gonna argue with you!)
But I swear, the next time I see someone arguing not against what someone said or did, but against their own imagined cardboard caricature of “Them,” I swear by Asimov’s Mighty Muttonchops I’m gonna feed that person to a goblin.
As always, I’ll be moderating comments if necessary — not based on what imaginary “side” you’re on, but based on whether or not you’re acting like an asshole in my space.
ETA: I’ve made several minor edits for clarity since this post went live.
Send In The Puppies… Don’t Bother They’re Here 4/28 | File 770
April 29, 2015 @ 7:26 pm
[…] Annie Bellet in a comment on Jim C. Hines’ “Choosing Sides” […]
roger tang
April 30, 2015 @ 12:12 am
“An average book doesn’t become extraordinary by throwing in underrepresented character traits”
But a lot of people think that if you put in underrepresented character traits, and do the homework to figure out how they shape a character’s personality, interactions, social status and overall place in the world, it can make a book extraordinary. (It’s just throwing it in there without considering all that DOES make it a checklist; it’s the old “dip a character in brown paint” syndrome).
I think there’s a very distinct difference in the two ways of normalizing characters, which makes one laudable and the other not so much. I suspect that some people think there’s no difference between the two.
Alessandra Kelley
April 30, 2015 @ 4:37 pm
I saw somewhere a single person make the rather feeble joke of “putting down” the Rabid Puppies, but I took it to mean either talking sternly to them the way one does to a puppy in training or just being mean in a purely human sense.
It didn’t strike me as a good idea or a good joke.
Getting Past the Attack Narrative · Deirdre Saoirse Moen
May 1, 2015 @ 4:50 pm
[…] I incorporate by reference this brilliant post from Jim C. Hines. […]
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little
May 4, 2015 @ 2:41 am
The thing about that pair of quotes? Torgeson does it all over again on a File770 comment thread here: http://file770.com/?p=22293
Once again, we have an author’s own words about why she withdrew–in this case, from the Sad Puppy slate.
And then Torgeson, in the comment thread, rushes in to tell us what Wade really meant.
It’s astounding how Torgeson can’t just accept that someone might simply decline to play the game at all. No, in his view, the decliner must either have been hounded out of the game by the other side (and is only saying otherwise because they’re afraid of SJW retribution!), or they must be an active participant in the game for the other side (they stabbed us in the back and we are sad!). And in fact Torgeson’s representation of Wade goes from the former to the latter in the space it takes Wade to come back and tell him off for trying to put words in her mouth.
I’m trying to figure out whether this is representative of a Puppyish need to tie everything to the “sides” narrative frame, or yet another unlovely example of a man who doesn’t respect a woman’s right to represent herself in her own words.
It’s probably a bit of both.
Gary D
May 4, 2015 @ 3:56 am
Speaking of friends being a qualification for being on the Sad Puppies slate, Google Vox Day’s long defense for him not being kicked out of the SFWA.
Nearly all of the people associated with Sad Puppies are mentioned as a supporter of him not being kicked out for applying his “scientific” explanation of why people of African descent are less intelligent and half-savage to another member.
Jonathon Side
May 4, 2015 @ 4:13 am
Well, I think it was his personal Wormtongue that said’stab in the back’, but BT’s definitely made this more about his own hurt feelings than Juliette Wade’s feelings.
Rick Bagnall
May 4, 2015 @ 12:19 pm
“I’m also incredibly annoyed that every woman in fantasy is beautiful and every man is a member of the chippendales.” Tarma shena Tale’sedrin would be flattered, perhaps, but she would also disagree. I also seem to remember Paksenarrion being described as fairly plain. For an example from a male author, I don’t think Zarantha was ever described as beautiful in Weber’s “The War God’s Own.” Regal of bearing, yes, “surprisingly clean” for somebody who was dressed like a peasant at the time, yes…but not beautiful. Mind you, I don’t think she was described as plain, either. The subject of her beauty (or lack thereof) simply never came up except to point out that her maid was prettier than she was.
Yes, there is a tendency–particularly in fantasy–for the protagonists to be in good physical shape (and described as such), but that’s only logical considering the amount of swordplay and other mayhem they get involved with. But just because somebody’s in good physical shape doesn’t necessarily mean that they are beautiful.