After some mostly civil discussion in the comments of my recent post about Eclipse Three, I'd like to say a few things. And since it's my blog, you can't stop me.
1st) I'd like to apologize to Jonathan Strahan for the "rocket" crack. I was using it as a turn of phrase to introduce the point of "compensating" rather than any real suggestion that trying to be mindful of bias (conscious or not) somehow related to male endowment. That wasn't my intention at all. I also don't feel like Eclipse Three suggests anything negative about him or his work. I didn't think that Eclipse Two or One did either though, and I feel like he was unfairly criticized then. I still suspect that Eclipse Three was influenced by the Eclipse Two situation and this lead to questions about the the role of the individual editor (or reader) when it comes to mitigating bias.
And just to be clear, I will be, and always planned on, buying Eclipse Three (and Four and more) regardless of what's in the ToC. My goal was never to get Strahan to revise the ToC and add more white male authors. That would be silly.
2nd) I'd like to apologize for the somewhat (or maybe excessively) troll-ish nature of the original post. I used the ToC for Eclipse Three to spark the debate over some thoughts I've been mulling over since the Mindblowing SF discussion a few weeks back. It was an easy target due to the several previous gender-themed discussions that the Eclipse series has generated in past years and I may be guilty of consciously choosing a voice that would generate comments. You can't fully develop any thought without discussing it outside your own brainspace and engaging with people who have a different point of view only help you more.
I don't have any ads and I'm not getting paid to write so I wasn't looking for hits or clicks, I was looking for civil discussion. I started this blog because I wanted to talk about books and the publishing industry in general and the vast majority of the people in my life (except for a few select people who knows who they are) weren't willing or able to talk about that kind of stuff. And while it was possible (though difficult) to find someone who was willing to listen, it was impossible to find someone one engaged enough in the SFF scene to present a counterargument or a lively debate.
3rd) This discussion has made me a little more cognizant of my own unconscious bias. I (like many readers) read mostly for pleasure so I tend to stick to my comfort zone, which is predominantly comprised of work I relate to more easily. I feel like this is a fundamental bias of life and not necessarily a bad thing. You like talking about stuff you are interested in, you enjoy spending time with people you get along with, and you derive pleasure out of reading books about situations you can relate to and characters you can connect with. Will I, as a white male, enjoy reading a story featuring a white male character more than a woman of color (assuming the writers are of equal talent)? Most likely. Is there bias? Of course. Does that make me sexist? I don't think so.
However, one of the goals of my blog is to help others (and myself) find new authors worth reading. And unless I expand my own horizons, it's going to be harder to do that. Which I think was the fundamental point I was missing when I was mulling things over internally. I think cofax said it best in the comments:
Now, he's [Strahan] a lot more aware of the issue, and he's clearly reaching out to a broader network of writers. This is what has created the E3 TOC--not quotas, but a conscious effort to expand his level of comfort to include writers from outside his own personal ingroup.
I thought this made a lot of sense. But recognizing that there are some holes in my reading lists is only the first step. I need some more informed help for the next part. Who should I be reading?
Please recommend any author you think is worth checking out regardless of gender or race. Please include why you recommended them as well.
I'm also willing to continue the discussion on gender bias in the original post comments if anyone is interested in joining.
As a final note, the cover on Barnes and Noble (shown above) has a different set of authors than the one originally posted by Strahan. This one includes Kim Stanley Robinson and James Blaylock, neither of whom are in the anthology. The cover Strahan posted featured Peter Watts, who is also not in the anthology. I don't know the best set of authors to put on the cover to move copies, but I would suggest using ones that actually appear in the book.
That's nice, I like an apology that proves you know what you've done.
ReplyDeleteBut damn-- your explanations are just as screwy this time as they were the first time!
...turn of phrase to introduce the point of "compensating" rather than any real suggestion that trying to be mindful of bias (conscious or not) somehow related to male endowment. That wasn't my intention at all...
Compensating for what? In fact-- what's wrong with compensation?
I also don't feel like Eclipse Three suggests anything negative about him or his work.
Funny, you sure have seemed negative about his work...
I didn't think that Eclipse Two or One did either though, and I feel like he was unfairly criticized then.
On the other hand, you seem to feel your criticism now are perfectly fair, and you are making the same criticism-- from the other side.
I still suspect that Eclipse Three was influenced by the Eclipse Two situation
I can guarantee that it was. In fact Strahan has said so, flat out.
and this lead to questions about the the role of the individual editor (or reader) when it comes to mitigating bias.
A question would have been;
"What, dear readers, do you think an editor's role should be in mitigating SF-F bias? Should s/he work towards a quota?"
And some of your readers might have responded with;
"If an editor cares, yes. And supposing s/he found a wide variety of writers of the quality s/he was looking for-- why shouldn't s/he create a balanced TOC?"
lets talk about this thought;
Will I, as a white male, enjoy reading a story featuring a white male character more than a woman of color (assuming the writers are of equal talent)? Most likely. Is there bias? Of course. Does that make me sexist? I don't think so.
That bias is sexism. What did you think it was?
Now, there are two parts to the sexism you have demonstrated; One is your assumption that you won't have much in common with those *other* kinds of humans. You will be astounded, I guarantee, at just how much you do have in common with women, and with humans of other colors. The reason you don't know that is because your confident belief does not impel you to explore those avenues.
Belief is a massive impedance to knowledge.
The other way your sexism shows, is in the way you felt you had the right to object to this antho in the first place. Why? Why should you care?
Seriously, what's it to you? Is the notion of one book with eleven (11) stories written by people not quite like yourself so damned scary and upsetting that you just had to complain about it? On the other hand, people who complained before were being "unfair."
I would like you to think very carefully about your kneejerk assumption that what *you* want is likewise perfect for everyone else.
And also, your assumption that what everyone else wants-- assuming that's something you don't want-- is just as easy to procure as your pleasures are.
Dude, you just don't know.
I really wish you did.
People to read? Pat Cadigan is a cyberpunk type, a genre I personally enjoy.
Jo Clayton, deceased, wrote a terrific antihero who happened to be female, called Skeen, there's a trilogy out there. It's flawed in many ways, but inspirational to me as a writer.
@Stella - That's a lot of comment. I'm going to try to be brief and most likely fail.
ReplyDeleteBasically, I am of the opinion that neither Eclipse Two or Eclipse Three present a problematic ToC. I presented an admittedly absurd argument that placed presumptions on Strahan in the same way that the criticism for Eclipse Two did. I'll admit I have less of an argument than they did. At no point did I hope that Strahan would put more white males into the anthology. That wasn't my end game. My end game was generating some conversation.
It's a strange way of showing support for Strahan, I know. And maybe I didn't think things through as much as I should have. But you can't necessarily do that when it's an internal monologue.
You suggested the question "What, dear readers, do you think an editor's role should be in mitigating SF-F bias? Should s/he work towards a quota?".
As I admitted above, I had the intention of drawing some people in who were interested in the issues to talk with me. Were you reading this blog to see that question before that post? Probably not. Are we having a dialogue about gender now? Yes.
"That bias is sexism. What did you think it was?"
On this point, I disagree. I don't see it as sexism. Or at least not as negative sexism. I believe this bias is innate and impossible to erase. There is nothing inferior about being a woman. But you can't for a second claim their aren't differences.
My assumption has never been that I won't have anything in common with minority groups. My assumption is that I have more in common with my own group. There is a difference there. And as someone (I believe it was you) suggested in the other thread, there are certain aspects of life that I haven't experienced and thusly can't fully comprehend. That is where the disconnect lies.
I'm sure you would admit that some of the time that discrimination or experience feeds into the writing of female authors or writers of color. Not all the time, of course, and to varying degrees. I can read these types of stories and I can be fascinated by them but they don't necessarily resonate with me the same way that shared experience does.
There are the potions of a story that we can all relate to as humans but there are also portions of a story that are exclusive to one group or other. If I can connect to every portion of a story rather than 90% of one and that missing 10% is something I will never truly experience, is it a negative to say I enjoyed fist store more?
Regarding objecting to the anthology:
Are you saying that I don't have a right to express my opinion. Couldn't that be construed as reverse sexism to presume that I have no right to talk about gender or nothing to contribute the conversation?
No, I think both groups were being unfair as they didn't give Strahan the benefit of the doubt. As I said before I definitely have less of an argument than they did. But I also have more reason to suspect that gender politics were at play.
And I don't think that there is anything scary or upsetting about it. I never said there were any negative implications or "OMG, womens haz stories, Epic Fail! I just thought that it was interesting how the Eclipse Two debate had seemingly shaped Eclipse Three and wanted to talk about it.
I don't assume that what I want is perfect for everyone else. Hell what I want isn't perfect for me half the time. I know I should get out of my comfort zone more and experience some different stuff. I would include having these discussions in the category of getting outside my comfort zone and trying to think differently.
And just as a question, can I find the use of the term "dude" offensive? ;)
Wow, I really failed at being brief.
ReplyDeletehaha, yeah, you're even less brief than I am!
ReplyDeletelast first;
1) "Dude" is the single gender-neutral, non-pejorative non-specific pronoun in the English language. Dude is male, female, and other, and emotionally valueless without the inflection or context with which it's used.
*cough* *grin*
So-- yeah, I have got to agree with you that although I'd skimmed your blog once in a while, my hackles were never raised to where I felt it necessary to speak up. I might, however, have preferred to begin this dialogue on a less antagonistic footing. And it can be done, you know.
...and as someone (I believe it was you) suggested in the other thread, there are certain aspects of life that I haven't experienced and thusly can't fully comprehend. That is where the disconnect lies.
Omigod, I started writing another thousandword comment on this, but no.
So I will just say that this is one thing fiction does, or good fiction, anyway-- it gives you an insight into someone's head.
You aren't a naked barbarian muscleman, and nor a Space-going explorer nor seafaring pirate captain nor James Bond. Those men and their experiences are as far apart from yours as any woman's can possibly be.
But, if you and I read the same books, we will each of us be know exactly the same amount about those men-- regardless of my sex versus yours.
If you had been presented with female heroes all your life along with the male ones-- you wouldn't be thinking twice about the disconnect.
I think Patrick makes some excellent points and it is obvious that his intentions were based solely on generating conversation not on being a sexist asshole. It IS a very interesting notion that one TofC be questioned and the other praised, and even as a woman I would probably raise an eyebrow or two at it. I don't however feel that as a woman I "have to fight for the mere right to be a human being." I'd be interested in your (Stella) explanation, as I have never felt such an affliction. Perhaps I do not read enough works of literature from such a certain perspective to further assist me to empathize with those of you fighting for that right. I sincerely hope that your struggle eases in time. Good luck with your writing (you mentioned you were a writer), I would be interested in reading anything you have completed to be less biased and create more diversity in my reading. Thank you.
ReplyDelete@Stella - Everyone knows women are dudettes. Come on...
ReplyDeleteRegarding your thousand word comment, I'm still not sure what to think of this. I will admit that I'm not a naked barbarian nor a space going explorer (and hopefully not both for the sake of asphyxiation), and this is a good point although I still feel like there is a fundamental difference here and one I'm not using these word things to say good.
Fiction does allow you to get inside someones head and if we read the same book we will have read the same words and processed the same story. But that doesn't mean that we will have the same reaction.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say "But, if you and I read the same books, we will each of us be know exactly the same amount about those men-- regardless of my sex versus yours"
and
"You do not know what it's like to have to fight for the mere right to be a human being. You are going to laugh at my phrase, I am sure; that would be because I am talking about a lifetime experience that you don't have and cannot empathise with."
Are you saying that if I read a book about a woman (not a Amazonian warrior but a relatively normal 2009 woman, we will both understand the woman the same?
If you had been presented with female heroes all your life along with the male ones-- you wouldn't be thinking twice about the disconnect.
Maybe, maybe not. I need to think on this one a little more. And I'm done for tonight.
As a final note, the cover on Barnes and Noble (shown above) has a different set of authors than the one originally posted by Strahan. This one includes Kim Stanley Robinson and James Blaylock, neither of whom are in the anthology. The cover Strahan posted featured Peter Watts, who is also not in the anthology. I don't know the best set of authors to put on the cover to move copies, but I would suggest using ones that actually appear in the book.
ReplyDeleteI think Jonathan addresses this concern fairly succinctly at the end of his blog post: I should note that, while the cover image is final, there are changes to be made to the cover text. The names on the front etc will change since this tentative design was completed. I’ll get the final up here when it’s done. Still, it looks v.cool!
I'm not sure how much clearer he could be on that topic.
On the issue of "am I sexist?", this is kind of the typical distracting question of definition that causes so much fail, where some people intend sexist to mean "consciously adhering to the belief and policy of women's (eg. intellectual) inferiority, or to the necessity and justness of consigning women and men to different spheres" while other people mean "holding conscious or unconscious attitudes and practices that tend to perpetuate gender-based injustice". You can waste a whole lot of time arguing this semantic point.
ReplyDeleteMore interesting is to observe that one was raised in, and operates in, a vast bath of sexism (and there is lots of interesting empirical scientific evidence of the way that this influences our judgements and cognitions), and that one's biases necessarily proceed from this.
One may be naturally biased towards fiction involving people "like oneself", but a) what we consider relevantly "like ourselves" has a lot to do with what axes of division are charged by histories of conflict and subjugation -- so that I have rarely heard right-handed readers complaining about the difficulties in identifying with left-handed protagonists (though handedness seems to imply a vast array of brain differences, possibly as significant at those implied by gender!), or tall readers complaining about their difficulty relating to short authors' fiction, and while once upon a time Protestant readers must have had enormous difficulty relating to fiction written by Catholic writers -- and maybe still do in Northern Ireland -- in the US this complaint is quite rare; and b) the content of the bias is shaped by history, so that one does not come to fiction written by the Other thinking "hey, I'm not a woman, wonder what being a woman is like?" but rather with a large culturally reinforced set of attitudes that tell one that one already knows what being a woman must be like.
The question "who should I be reading?", after your expressing the insight about your reading being influenced by your bias, sure sounds like it's going to be the very wise and relevant question "so since I realize I've been unconsciously avoiding women writers and writers of color, can I have a list of names?" You kind of bail at that point, though, by asking then "Please recommend any author you think is worth checking out regardless of gender or race. Please include why you recommended them as well."
Well if it's regardless of gender and race, then I have no idea, because other than that bias you just noted, I don't know anything else about the gaps in your reading. Are you up to speed on the New Weird? Have you read Vellum? Have you read Jane Austen or Henry Fielding? I have no idea, so I have no idea where to begin.
However if I was going to answer the question I thought you were asking, "I have been avoiding women writers and writers of color in SF, who are some?" I would have lots of suggestions (many of whom, as far as newish writers writing today, I already noted in my interview -- as for classic SF, I would dare say that anyone who hasn't read Joanna Russ, Ursula K. Le Guin, Octavia Butler and Samuel Delany cannot claim to understand science fiction and fantasy...)
@Benjamin
ReplyDeleteThe question "who should I be reading?", after your expressing the insight about your reading being influenced by your bias, sure sounds like it's going to be the very wise and relevant question "so since I realize I've been unconsciously avoiding women writers and writers of color, can I have a list of names?" You kind of bail at that point, though, by asking then "Please recommend any author you think is worth checking out regardless of gender or race. Please include why you recommended them as well."
See the problem here is that I felt that if I just said "Who are some women authors I should be reading?" it might come across wrong in that damned if you do, damned if you don't way of suggesting the only reason I'm doing it was to avoid being called sexist rather than any realistic desire to increase my base.
In much the same way, I wasn't sure if I should run the Elizabeth Bear interview this week or next because I didn't want the timing to appear "convenient."
In retrospect, the way I worded it was pretty lame. I was mainly saying give me some female and WoC to read but I want to ask in a sexist way. I did find a good list over on Tor.com which I linked.
And I've read a fair bit of LeGuin and a little Butler and Delany but admittedly not much. LeGuin is absolutely amazing. Russ I'm ashamed to say I don't think I've heard of. I will check it out.
Patrick, Russ is a very early writer, from the First wave of feminism, and full of anger against men-- And IMO, it impacted the quality of her writing tremendously. The polemics get mighty tiresome, if you are looking for entertainment.
ReplyDeleteShe gets recommended because there were so very few women getting published in the 70's. None of them should be considered the voice for all women-- no more than Descartes should be considered a Male Philosopher. They just happened to get more lucky than any other women who were trying to get past the blockade.
let me recommend Jo Clayton's "Skeen's Leap" series (out of print). It has an excellent flawed female hero full of derring-do and reluctant responsibility, good SF elements including one of the best sentient spaceships I've ever read. The kinds of flaws in the writing may strike you as essentially female-- they did to me! But they are no worse, effectively, than the flaws I've found in many a male-written novel.
In much the same way, I wasn't sure if I should run the Elizabeth Bear interview this week or next because I didn't want the timing to appear "convenient."
ReplyDeleteOh, dude. That's just sad. That's holding your breath till you turn blue and then they'll be sorry.