...because it looks like he's compensating for something.
I saw for the first time the ToC for Eclipse Three, an ongoing anthology series of new fiction.
Notice that 11 out of the 16 authors are women. (Also notice that the cover advertises Peter Watts but he isn't in the ToC but that's beside the point) That's an unusually high number.
Let's take a look at the original ToC for last year's Eclipse Two:
Hmmm... only 1 woman in the original ToC for Eclipse Two. And no authors that are clearly members of minority groups. Hey! Isn't this the same anthology that got criticized last year for not having enough women and minorities? Wasn't the ToC later revised to include Ted Chiang and Margo Lanagan? Boosting that diversity factor by 200%?
The covers are strange too. In Eclipse One the ratio of M:F was 9:7 but all 6 cover authors were men. In Eclipse Two, the ration of M:F was 13:2 and both women made the cover (after Eclipse One received some heat for that). Eclipse Three has 4 female authors on the cover, one male author, and for fun another author who isn't even in the table of contents! That's Jonathan Strahan just screwing with us right there. "I'll put 10 male authors on the cover but have all of the content written by female authors. Who's sexist now?"
Now I'm not suggesting that any one of these authors don't deserve to be in the anthology or can't write. That's not the case at all. I'm suggesting that the disproportionately high number of female authors gives the impression that Jonathan Strahan was purposefully trying to build an anthology around female authors. This is even more suspicious when you consider the criticism that was voiced around Eclipse Two last year. I know its counter intuitive but I think this does a disservice to the authors. To me the ToC says "I got in trouble for not having enough women authors last year, this ought to shut them up" instead of "Hey here are some really good SF&F stories, enjoy."
I realize I'm walking a fine line here but I feel like you can't react to Eclipse Two or The Mammoth Book of Mindblowing SF with outrage without at least raising an eyebrow at the make-up of Eclipse Three. Why does a book with an unusually high amount of men cause outrage but an unusually high amount of women slip by? Don't they both suggest that the editor might have been considering something else other than the stories themselves when it came to commissioning/selecting work?
Certainly, with any EditorFail you can't know for sure what the editor's intention was. Jonathan Strahan probably didn't realize that he had a lot of women this year, just as I'm sure he didn't realize it was mostly men last year. It appears he is leaning to more of a slipstream/fantasy feel for this anthology and maybe he had more female authors in mind for the style of stories he was looking for. I can't be sure if he did or not. You can only know what you personally interpret it as or what you think it could be interpreted as by someone else. And I can clearly see how some people could see this as an apology, as pandering, or as biased; even more so than last years. Unfortunately, there's also no clear right way to fix the problem. It would appear that the Jonathan Strahan's anthologies might be eclipsed by the stigma of EditorFails for years to come.
And why is there still only one author clearly representing a minority group? Not as easy spell that out on the cover? Are we saving that for Eclipse Four?
I'm at a bit of a loss here. But thought I might note that your sidebar listing People Of Interest doesn't seem to be all that diverse. Seems interesting in light of this commentary here.
ReplyDeleteI'm suggesting that the disproportionately high number of female authors gives the impression that Jonathan Strahan was purposefully trying to build an anthology around female authors.
ReplyDeleteIt does but why is this "suspicious"? It appears that Strahan viewed some criticism of the previous volumes as legitimate and acted on this.
Don't they both suggest that the editor might have been considering something else other than the stories themselves when it came to commissioning/selecting work?
I'm not sure why this would be problematic but no, they don't. You really think that in order to end up with a TOC that is mostly men you have to consciously try?
Why does a book with an unusually high amount of men cause outrage but an unusually high amount of women slip by?
ReplyDeleteThe difference is context.
"An unusually high amount of men" attracts negative comment because it is the norm (look at the interview series you're doing: 21 writers, 5 of whom are women), yet shouldn't be, because it is unrepresentative of the demographics of the contemporary field.
"An unusually high amount of women" isn't ignored, but attracts positive comment, because this sort of balance shouldn't be unusual. The point is not that it's perfectly representative of the demographics of the contemporary field (though it is certainly closer to representative than E2) but that you'd be lucky to find more than a couple of anthologies with a similar balance published this year; whereas finding anthologies whose contents are 70% male-authored would be easy.
We should have a field where it is the norm for anthologies to be sufficiently variable in their makeup that both this table of contents and a hypothetical 70% male table of contents are unremarkable, because we can rely on the pool of anthologies overall to contain plenty of each, and plenty on the spectrum between. Sadly that is not currently the case.
As to editorial intent: as you say, we don't know, and I'm not sure that speculation is helpful.
As to content: it's risky to judge that from a list of authors. In the comments on his post, Strahan says that he considers it to be about 55% fantasy/45% sf. That is less sf-focused than E2, but more sf-focused than E1. Given that all of the male authors in E3 write fantasy on a regular basis, I'm not comfortable asserting that it's the women bringing the fantasy to this book.
@Alisa - It seems you are right.
ReplyDelete1. I never gave it any thought. Does it make me sexist because I wasn't consciously making sure I fulfilled the appropriate quotas?
2. Any particular recommendations?
3. If you came back and I had added 1 minority author would it fix the problem? How about 20?
@Martin - "You really think that in order to end up with a TOC that is mostly men you have to consciously try". - This is my point exactly. Why does the SF fanbase react negatively as if some of this editors are sexist pigs (although maybe some of them are) when an anthology with a ToC like Eclipse Two is released. What is more "sexist": an editor publishing an anthology without considering gender at all or an editor consciously making sure he's satisfied quota?
Is it a good thing that Strahan is including more women? Most likely. Is is a good thing that Strahan appears to be negotiating his editorial vision (which was perfectly fine for Eclipse One)? Maybe.
Is Eclipse Three the anthology Strahan would have published without last year's debate? I suspectnot. Is that a good thing?
@Niall - I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having a high ammount of women. And honestly, if this weren't the Eclipse series (which has gotten in hot water in the past), I wouldn't have even noticed. The sad thing is now I have a reason to question Strahan's editorial integrity.
Think about io9's recommendation for District 9 at the same time as they were being sponsored by them. Did this make District 9 any less of a good movie? No. Does is call into question the motives behind their editorial content? Yes.
I am not an editor. Most of us are not editors, and there is a reason for that. I want my editors to be editors. I want the stories and authors than Strahan thinks I should read. Not the stories and authors than Strahan thinks I should read and are suitably diverse enough to prevent criticism.
Patrick, these 'quotas' you speak of are only in your head. The people arguing regarding the Eclipse ToC and cover representation of gender balance are not seeking quotas. They are seeking a culture that represents their contribution to the field accurately, and that's quite a different thing.
ReplyDeleteSo long as you argue about 'quotas' you're having an argument with yourself, one built on a cognitive framework that is meant to blind you to what the 'opposition' is actually trying to say.
I do not see any reason to question Strahan's editorial integrity, I see every reason to believe he's probably become more conscious of systemic biases and how they can effect his selection process without his own conscious recognition and is now working to counter that. That isn't sexism, it is personal and cultural growth.
@Redag - Maybe quotas is the wrong term to use.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't believe Strahan is sexist. I don't believe he was being sexist when Eclipse 2 was being developed either. And I agree that he is most likely attempting to be "conscious of systemic biases and how they can effect his selection process without his own conscious recognition". I'm more interested in how you do that and what the ideal end-state is.
Is it
A) Anthologies where no one pays attention to the distribution of authors
or
B) Anthologies where there are always an even distribution (either M:F ratio of 1:1 or a hard to determine representative group)
Shouldn't the goal be A? I think B leads to the aforementioned "quotas." I also suspect that Eclipse Three is closer to Goal B rather than Goal A.
Shouldn't the goal be A? I think B leads to the aforementioned "quotas."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with trying first for A, without being conscious of racial and gender diversity is that we are all embedded in a culture that defaults to white and male. So long as we don't challenge the default assumptions about whiteness and maleness, we end up with stuff like the Mammoth Book TOC. And challenging assumptions requires an active effort on the part of editors, writers, and readers.
If you read Jonathan Strahan's response to the original Eclipse kerfuffle, he admits that when he had some writers drop out, he reached out, naturally, to his network of personal contacts to make up the difference. All of whom were white and male, because those were the people he knew. It didn't occur to him that maybe he could go farther afield. Now, he's 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 think this is a very valid point especially regarding the expanded network. However, I still feel like Strahan was operating at an A level in Eclipse 1 and Eclipse 2 but the kerfuffle over Eclipse 2 made him regress to the B grouping for Eclipse 3. Now I don't believe he used any quotas, but the main difference between Group A and Group B is whether you are considering race/gender when you are making a decision. Which I think he did, when he wasn't considering it before.
ReplyDeleteI remember reading Strahan's explanation about stories falling through and reaching out to his network for help. Does Strahan have a responsibility to reach outside his network? That's not to say there aren't plenty of authors outside his network that he would like (of all different types) but is there something intrinisically wrong with reaching out to your favorite authors?
There's also an issue of gender/perspective/and enjoyment of the story in play. As a male, Jonathan probably identifies more with male perspectives. More often than not, male writers write male perspectives better than female writers. Just as female writers write better female perspectives. You write what you know. Does this predisposition toward writing what you know and enjoying what you can identify with mean you are necessarily closed minded? What was wrong with Jonathan Strahan saying "I need some more good stories, who do I know that writes good stories?"
Also, if it's a question of expanding his network for diversity, shouldn't you also question his repeated inclusion of Peter S. Beagle, Terry Dowling, Jeffery Ford, Ellen Klages, Margo Lanagan, and Maureen McHugh? Those authors have has two or three stories in three anthologies.
If you say those are his friends or the people he enjoys working with the most so it's okay, how is that any different that what happened when he was looking for replacements stories for Eclipse Two?
It's kind of funny how you can get in trouble both for not having female authors and having female authors.
ReplyDeleteDid the 13:2 ratio of Eclipse Two leave you thinking that Strahan was "purposefully trying to build an anthology around [male] authors" instead of "Hey here are some really good SF&F stories, enjoy."?
ReplyDeleteIf it didn't, then why didn't it, given how much more extreme a ratio than 11:5 that is?
I don't doubt you're right that the contents of this anthology were shaped by the previous controversy. Strahan probably did more to actively solicit stories from women. Personally, I find it very easy to imagine that stories from Kushner, Fowler, Klages, Cadigan, McHugh and Griffith (the woman authors in that ToC whose work I'm familiar with) were among the best stories he read.
Does Strahan have a responsibility to reach outside his network?
ReplyDeleteIf he wants to be representing the wide range of voices in the field, then yes, I think he does. If he doesn't think that's important, and doesn't mind getting the stink-eye from women and people of color who are all far too used to having a minimal presentation in such colors, then no, he doesn't.
It's all about choices, and being conscious of what those choices mean. But the readers also have choices: about speaking out against monocropping (to amend Mr. Di Filippo's metaphor); and about buying or not buying fiction that represents the full range of human experience.
Me, I applaud Mr. Strahan for the diversity in this TOC and I intend to buy the collection. I hope that your post, and others like it, don't discourage him from continuing to reach out to women writers and writers of color (and women of color). That would be a real shame.
Seriously, dude: we've had eighty years of SF/F absolutely dominated by white (English-speaking) males. Who loses if we get a little more diversity in the mix? And you cannot seriously claim that Maureen McHugh and Molly Gloss and Nnedi Okorafor aren't good enough to be in this collection.
Let us have our diversity. We're never going to short on Mammoth Books of White Men's Writing, after all...
Wow -- considering the charming way that you titled your post and framed your question, I'm amazed you're getting the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to have to assume that usually you're not a douche and the people commenting know you personally -- or they're the sort of really nice people who don't mind doing racism and sexism 101, over and over, to people who have no interest in learning.
ReplyDeleteSatire... right? OMG.
ReplyDeletethe main difference between Group A and Group B is whether you are considering race/gender when you are making a decision. Which I think he did, when he wasn't considering it before.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be assuming that not considering race and gender will lead to an equitable distribution in both areas. You're missing the fact that, as others have pointed out, we're all products of a culture that defaults to white and male. Failing to consider race or gender will typically lead a white male editor (and a great many editors of other genders or ethnicities) to choose a whole lot of white male authors precisely because he isn't thinking about it.
Even if you had some kind of blind submission process whereby the authors' names were kept secret from the editor, the problem would still exist as regards characters who are neither white nor male. I, too, doubt that he was consciously picking out white male authors and discarding the rest, but that doesn't mean that race and gender played no role in his decisions. Any editor will bring his or her biases, both conscious and unconscious, to the table when deciding what stories to choose, and I think that when you assume the editor wasn't considering race or gender when he made his decisions, you're discounting the degree to which we unconsciously (or consciously) gravitate towards the familiar in both the people we seek out and the characters we're drawn to.
A typical white male editor who believes that the goal is to ignore race and gender is probably going to wind up with a great many more white guys in his author and story lists than he is women and people of color, because that's what he's likely to be familiar with and drawn to. It's only by thinking about these things that we can hope to overcome the unconscious bias. We can't fight against it if we don't acknowledge it and deal with it.
That's a lovely bit of concern trolling you've got there, dude.
ReplyDelete@Tim - That's sort of my point. If you introduce gender politics into the situation (that as far as I aware weren't present until people got upset about E2), they aren't going to just go away. I see gender politics in both the revised E2 and E3 ToCs. I'm not saying its a bad thing. I'm just saying they are there.
ReplyDelete@Zed Lopez - "Did the 13:2 ratio of Eclipse Two leave you thinking that Strahan was "purposefully trying to build an anthology around [male] authors" instead of "Hey here are some really good SF&F stories, enjoy."? If it didn't, then why didn't it, given how much more extreme a ratio than 11:5 that is?"
No, it didn't. And the E3 ToC wouldn't have said that to me either, had there not been such a stink about E2 and a revised ToC. It's just that in my mind the Eclipse series and gender politics are now tied together, unfortunately. You said it yourself that the controversy probably shaped the contents of E3.
And please bear in my that I have no issue with any of the stories being collected here or any of the authors. You could fill an anthology any way you wanted and you would be able to find absolutely fantastic stories.
@cofax - I would agree about the choices. And the internet does allow for a dialogue between authors and editors. Which is a good thing.
"I hope that your post, and others like it, don't discourage him from continuing to reach out to women writers and writers of color (and women of color). That would be a real shame."
I hope it doesn't either. I intend on buying and reading the anthology myself. There's nothing protestable here (I think that gender influenced his decision but I wasn't sure if it that was good or bad. And I'm increasingly of the opinion that it was a good thing although I don't think it will address the main issues of the gender equality constituency.
I will, however, point out that the writers of color ratio in E3 is just as bad as E2. Why is Strahan getting compliments on the women but a free pass on the lack of writers of color?
"And you cannot seriously claim that Maureen McHugh and Molly Gloss and Nnedi Okorafor aren't good enough to be in this collection."
Where did I make that claim?
@Sandy Hereld - I'm actually quite happy that everyone has remained quite civil. More than anything I wanted to have a discussion about the role of gender politics in the genre community and frankly writing the main post in a more satirical voice has gotten people to engage in the discussion I wanted. No, the people don't know me but I appreciate their thoughts. They make several good points, especially cofax regarding Strahan's expanded contact base. You would be surprised that I do have an interest in learning and I enjoy talking through my thoughts. I'd appreciate if you would share your thoughts and recommendations here, rather than just belittling mine.
@Liz "Satire... right? OMG." Some satire but not all. I honestly do believe that gender did play into E3 (more so than it did in E2) and I wanted to discuss if that was better or worse than not thinking about gender at all.
@zillah975 - It's a good point that being blind to race/gender won't lead to an appropriate distribution and I'm aware of that fact. But Strahan managed E1 just fine without the help of anyone.
And I know there is bias (subconscious or not) toward white male authors/characters. And that there is no easy fix. That's for certain. But bear in mind that 90% of everything is crap, not just white male authored stuff.
But what's the end state goal? Should it be like food, where you should try everything and see what you like or don't? Everyone is still going to like their mother's cooking the best. I think we can all agree that publishing quotas aren't a good idea. What's best way to get those crotchety old sexists to take their medicine?
@zvi - As I said earlier, now that I've got your attention, let's have a discussion about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(reposted comment here)
ReplyDeleteMaybe he simply found more really good stories by women this time around than by men.
...(I think that gender influenced his decision but I wasn't sure if it that was good or bad. And I'm increasingly of the opinion that it was a good thing although I don't think it will address the main issues of the gender equality constituency.
How will it not? What do you suppose would address the issues of gender inequality in publishing beyond actually publishing good female authors?
I will, however, point out that the writers of color ratio in E3 is just as bad as E2. Why is Strahan getting compliments on the women but a free pass on the lack of writers of color?
Because we take what we can get. We take it one step at a time. We can be grateful for baby steps. We can praise for that, and let this daring man know that his decision was a good one-- and the next brave thing he does-- will also be good.
You know, minorities get it coming and going. Any particular group will get accused of screaming and whining for what we want-- and then be accused of not screaming and whining enough.
I suggest you google the term; "Intersectionality" a concept which has muc to do with this particular pin-prick of yours.
"Daring [...] brave" ???
ReplyDeleteHe published an anthology with more women than men after he was criticized for the the lackthereof in a previous collection. He's not exactly leading the front line in battle to hand-to-hand combat armed with nothing but a sword. Its ok. We're not going anywhere, white males are not trying to single handedly phase out women, and the gap between genders keeps tightening every day. No reason to worry our pretty little heads about, I'm sure it was unintentionally done, and he more than made up for it in the third anthology.
What's best way to get those crotchety old sexists to take their medicine?
ReplyDeleteI think we might start by recalling two things:
* it's not just the crotchety old sexists we need to work on, it's also the hidden sexism and racism that we pretty much all have to some degree;
* it's not terribly helpful to treat efforts to overcome racism and sexism as medicine someone has to take.
I believe you're being glib here and not serious, but there are serious underpinnings to the remark. It's based on the assumptions that sexism and racism are only things that other people do and only on purpose, and that overcoming our biases is a distastful and unpleasant task, something we have to just hold our noses and choke down rather than something we engage in mindfully with enthusiasm.
And one way to help overcome the effects of institutional gender bias and racial bias in the publishing industry is to react with appreciation rather than criticism it when a publisher or editor does think about race and gender and does make a conscious effort to overcome those biases and present a more diverse selection of authors and characters.
That is, we do best to overcome racism and sexism by consciously working to overcome it. Decrying efforts to include more diversity on the basis that obviously someone thought about it is not helpful, nor is expecting the bias to be overcome without conscious thought.
It's not a binary, here. It's not "either editors don't think about it at all or they have to meet quotas." Editors think about all kinds of things when they're putting these collections together, and being mindful of diversity can easily be one of those things without anyone trying to impose quotas. I think it's unfortunate that you seem to keep suggesting they're the only possible result of thinking about these issues.
I think "unusually high" is pretty much a meaningless term since we don't know the mean or standard deviation. 68% women doesn't seem likely to be outside the error bars t'me.
ReplyDeleteI missed the kerfluffle over Eclipse 2, so I can't really speak to that, but I will say that in looking over the tables of contents, I'm really delighted by #3 (though I'm sorry the Peter Watts ting seems to have fallen through -- that happens; no blame).
As a man who appears on the table of contents, I have to say that I'm pleased he didn't reach out to any more women like Maureen McHugh and Karen Joy Fowler and Nicola Griffith. Meaning I'm pleased he didn't find any more women who are better than me. I'm said he didn't find any more men who are better than me too. But with those folks represented, I'd buy the book whether I made the cut or not.
I don't think you want to listen to arguments why anthologies containing a wide range of voices are valuable, so I won't say that.
ReplyDeleteI will say, you are not the only reader. In your words, " More often than not, male writers write male perspectives better than female writers. Just as female writers write better female perspectives. You write what you know. Does this predisposition toward writing what you know and enjoying what you can identify with mean you are necessarily closed minded? "
What it means is that you prefer an anthology that speaks to your interests. But I say again you are not the only reader. There are a lot of readers in SF whose "what they identify with" is female. There are a lot of readers in SF whose "what they identify with" is not white. If the anthology has more authors who qualify as such, perhaps it's because the anthologist is hoping that those readers, as well as readers who are interested in unexpected viewpoints, will buy the book.
Posted some follow up comments here: http://yetistomper.blogspot.com/2009/08/apologies-to-jonathan-strahan.html
ReplyDelete@Stella - That wasn't my intention. I was mainly interested in the compensation portion of the turn of phrase rather than the male endowment portion. Bit of a double edged sword for the discussion I placed it in, unfortunately.
@Zillah975 - You make some excellent points. I wasn't trying to imply medicine as something you needed to choke down. I was using the metaphor that medicine was merely something that helps fix a problem in your body. Some people realize there's a problem and want to get rid of it, some people realize there's a problem and don't care, and other people don't think there is a problem but are interested in preventative care. Supplemental vitamins aren't necessary but they should make you healthier.
And one way to help overcome the effects of institutional gender bias and racial bias in the publishing industry is to react with appreciation rather than criticism it when a publisher or editor does think about race and gender and does make a conscious effort to overcome those biases and present a more diverse selection of authors and characters.
To the 2nd part of your argument, I was mainly framing my original suggestions around distaste for the negative response Strahan got for Eclipse Two. I don't think he deserved to be called a sexist in the first place, so I was making a purposefully overstated argument to suggest that bias is still present even when things are fixed.
I do concede the point that it wasn't necessarily helpful to "criticize" Strahan in this way. He was merely trying to address internal and external biases in the genre in a positive way. But I also don't think it did any harm either and it enabled me to have the discussion I wanted about gender bias. Plus I got some people thinking about Eclipse Three. I don't think Strahan would hate that.
And again, I don't think quotas are a good idea and I'm not suggesting that they are the only solution or the one that Strahan applied here.
@DanielAbraham: I propose a quota of writing stories as well as yours or better. That would guarantee a quality anthology.
@Jonquil - "I don't think you want to listen to arguments why anthologies containing a wide range of voices are valuable, so I won't say that."
I find that comment curious, care to elaborate?
At the same time, you are only one reader too and our perspectives are the only ones we have. And I agree that an anthology should most likely have a wide variety of voices to attract a diverse reader base to sell to. I just think that it's a good business practice but it should be a virtue not a responsibility.
It's one thing to praise an editor for diversity in a collection, it's another to chastise an editor for a lack of diversity or suppose that the anthology is fundamentally flawed without it.
Especially when it doesn't make any claim of being The Best of The Year or The Anthology of the Only Authors Who Matter. Sometimes the editor isn't saying anything more than "Here are some stories I enjoyed and you might too." There is nothing despicable there.
@patric;
ReplyDeleteIt obviously depends on one's point of view.
"didn't do any harm" to whom? 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.
"quotas are a bad thing" for whom? The group which must give up its dominance, (which it has held all these years by means of an unspoken quota e.g. all men no women, certainly feel startled by this notion but me? I think a quota is a damn fine thing. it benefits me, and I won't pretend otherwise.
@Stella - That wasn't my intention. I was mainly interested in the compensation portion of the turn of phrase rather than the male endowment portion.
I can't tell the difference, personally. What has he got to compensate for? A small dick?
It's one thing to praise an editor for diversity in a collection, it's another to chastise an editor for a lack of diversity or suppose that the anthology is fundamentally flawed without it.
On the contrary, this editor would not now be gathering praise for diversity if he hadn't been chastised for his previous attitude. He would never have noticed that his readers were dissatisfied. He would have created a third antho equally male-wieghted. And if no one talked about that one, he would go on to produce a fourth and fifth book that also depended on his tried-and-trues.
And as far as I am concerned, his anthologies would indeed be fundamentally flawed.
Sometimes the editor isn't saying anything more than "Here are some stories I enjoyed and you might too."
And I think that's exactly what Strahan is saying. For you to assume otherwise is mighty presumptive.
Patrick,
ReplyDelete"I just think that it's a good business practice but it should be a virtue not a responsibility."
When Mr. Strahan did just this, you accused him of having a small rocket and that "he might have been considering something else other than the stories themselves when it came to commissioning/selecting work". You did not consider that it might have been good business practice or a virtue; you told him he had a small rocket.
And I'm not going to discuss the value of a wide range of voices, because you have ignored people -- cofax, for instance -- trying to do this in this very thread.
Not to mention-- being responsible is a virtue.
ReplyDeleteI meant my post wasn't going to do any harm because I don't think there is anyone who is going to boycott the anthology based on my little article. I'm certainly going to buy it. If anything there are a few more people talking about gender in the genre. Which as everyone has suggested, is a good thing. I never said sexism doesn't do any harm. I was referring to my post.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on being the first person to play the "you don't know what its like" card. It's true. I don't. I make no claims to understand what you go through. So now what?
I believe that quotas are in principle a good thing but in practice a bad thing. If you say you need (in a 10 author anthology) that you need 5 males, 5 women and an equal represenation of race or sexual orientation, you run the risk of focusing too much on gender/race rather than the stories themselves. Quotas are a tool toward equality or eliminating bias but I don't believe they are the best tool. Everything doesn't always fit into the rigid structure that numerically based (percentages/statistics/ratios)
quotas demand.
Regarding the compensation comment, I was referring to the appearance that Strahan was compensating for the criticism that E2 got. I merely used the turn of phrase that is often applied to men with expensive cars and the like. I never meant to get into a debate about penis size.
"He would never have noticed that his readers were dissatisfied. He would have created a third antho equally male-wieghted. And if no one talked about that one, he would go on to produce a fourth and fifth book that also depended on his tried-and-trues. "
Go take a look at Eclipse One ToC. Do you have a problem with that? Strahan himself said that a couple of stories for Eclipse Two from minority authors fell through and as a result he reached out to his network to get some quick replacements. You are doing Strahan a disservice by suggesting that he is unable to edit a diverse anthology without someone watching over his shoulder.
"And I think that's exactly what Strahan is saying. For you to assume otherwise is mighty presumptive."
I hate to tell you this, but this is EXACTLY the same thing that happened with Eclipse Two.
@Jonquil - Patrick,
1) I had no problem with the make up itself. I was pointing out that because of the whole Eclipse 2 debacle, you can now apply gender politics to Strahan's decisions for Eclipse 3. No one gave him the benefit of the doubt for Eclipse 2, why is it okay to give him the benefit of the doubt for Eclipse 3?
2) If you check the main body original post, I said that it could be viewed as bias toward female authors not that it actually was.
"And I'm not going to discuss the value of a wide range of voices, because you have ignored people -- cofax, for instance -- trying to do this in this very thread."
When did I ignore cofax? Cofax presented the most compelling point in the whole thread suggesting that it's just as likely that the Eclipse 2 debate made Strahan aware of unconscious bias in his personal network and that as a professional editor maybe he took steps to remedy that.
I have never once said that having diversity in an anthology is anything but a good thing.
Hmmm... only 1 woman in the original ToC for Eclipse Two. And no authors that are clearly members of minority groups. Hey! Isn't this the same anthology that got criticized last year for not having enough women and minorities? Wasn't the ToC later revised to include Ted Chiang and Margo Lanagan? Boosting that diversity factor by 200%?
ReplyDeleteIt's been a while since someone suggested I was receiving favorable treatment because of my race. If nothing else, this has been a useful reminder to me that I haven't escaped such perceptions.
@Ted - I didn’t mean any disrespect by my statements. Exhalation was one of the best, if not the best, stories in Eclipse Two. However, after Strahan received the backlash for only having 1 non white-male author in Eclipse 2, he did issue a revised ToC with 2 authors (yourself included) who didn’t fit the white male description. This at least gave the impression that Strahan went looking for non white male authors to appease critics. I don’t think anyone would be willing to argue that this interpretation is invalid. Obviously, he went for fantastic non-white-male authors but unfortunately, I don’t believe the non-white-male-ness of you and Margo Lanagan was purely coincidental.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn’t your inclusion that raised an eyebrow but the circumstances under which your name was added. And the point I was trying to make regarding Eclipse Three is that while being mindful of diversity is not a bad thing by any means, under the wrong circumstances, it can give the wrong impression. Which is unfortunate for the many brilliant non-white-male authors who I’m sure want to be judged purely on the content of their stories.
jesus, Patrick, open mouth insert foot!
ReplyDelete"...to appease critics."
How about; "...because he realised his critics were right."
"Being mindful of diversity is not a bad thing by any means, but it can give a wrong impression."
To the contrary, it gives a right impression. If being mindful is "not a bad thing by any means,' it must be a good thing by any means. Right?
"Which is unfortunate for the many brilliant non-white-male authors who I’m sure want to be judged purely on the content of their stories."
What you are saying here is that Strahan has created a ghetto book-- even though, as you keep on admitting, he created a ghetto book inhabited by brilliant niggers.
You are worried that the next one might be total crap, because there are only a very few brilliant niggers out there. There goes the neighborhood.
Do you understand how that makes you sound?
I don’t believe the non-white-male-ness of you and Margo Lanagan was purely coincidental.
ReplyDeleteJonathan did not go looking for us; we came to him, as he described here.
@Ted - That was a piece of information I was not aware of. In light of that, my understanding of the Eclipse Two events was completely incorrect and as such, have changed in a critical way.
ReplyDeleteAlso in retrospect, the vast majority of readers are going to either at too macro of a level to know about the whole discussion at all (just seeing Eclipse Two or Three at the bookstore) or too micro of a level to not know the full story. So its probably quite ridiculous to worry that more than a few partially informed idiots like myself are going to put 2+2 together to make 7.
@Stella - Don't appreciate the language but I'm going to leave the comment as is. Also please don't put words in my mouth or pretend you are quoting me when you are removing relevant portions. I said under the wrong circumstances, it can give the wrong impression.
And I'm not sure where you got the "ghetto books" from, that's not what I'm saying at all. I was illustrating to Ted (who is most likely more informed than either of us and certainly more than me) the rationale (now admittedly flawed) behind the impression I got from Eclipse 2. From a black box scenario, it looked like Strahan output a ToC, received input in the form of comments about the lack of diversity, and then output a new ToC. I wasn't trying to argue he was wrong, I was trying to show what things looked like from my perspective.
My impression was incorrect as proved by Ted but I don't think I'm the only one who saw the revised ToC as a direct response to the criticism.
I was out of line with the original post. I didn't have the full story and I was being presumptive. However, I felt it was rational given the information I had (which admittedly wasn't much). I had a gut reaction and wrote a blog post on it.
Yes, I used a very bad word, one you've side-stepped-- because we can say all kinds of subtly bigoted things as long as we avoid the "N" word. We can insinuate that the world will disrespect non-white-male authors if they have a majority of a TOC. That no matter how good their work is, it's inclusion will be perceived as nothing but a sop to the complaining minorities.
ReplyDeleteI totally apologise for losing your "under the wrong circumstances" modifier-- I don't know how that happened, actually. But now that you bring it up, I wonder what "the wrong circumstances" might be;"After a controversy?"
You know what-- there will probably be controversy non-stop from now on. It's a matter of numbers; there are too many non-white-male readers and writers of SF-F to be ignored anymore. Some editors will figure out that their circle of selectables has widened, some won't.
Yeah, this seriously feels like satire...
ReplyDeleteIf the gender swap had been diff't in Eclipse 3, with 4 women writers instead of 4 men writers, it wouldn't receive much comment. We're pretty used to seeing women make up around 20-25% of a TOC.
It's boringly standard. **It's when there are 1-2 women or NO women and minorities in a TOC, that the Internet comes down** Cause if women are writing 40%-60% of fantasy fiction, then, um... yeah, only showing up in a TOC with 20% is odd.
Think of how boringly normal this TOC would have been with the genders reversed and every name sounded like some old white guy.
I admit, this TOC looks far more interesting than the ones I see with the same white guy names. I'm much more likely to read it. And since 60-80% of readers are women, it's a far more sound marketing decision than the one full of the same old thing.
And folks wonder why SF sales are flagging. Try mixing it up, people.
supreme clothing
ReplyDeletehermes
Travis Scott Jordan
off white clothing
kyrie shoes
hermes outlet
air jordan travis scott
yeezys
jordan 4
hermes outlet online
goyard
ReplyDeletewestbrook shoes
kd shoes
palm angels
jordan sneakers
bape
off-white
golden goose outlet
jordan 4
supreme outlet