The New Rude Masters of Fantasy & Science Fiction – and Romance

From The Writing of Cat Rambo:

We’re closing the doors on 2019 and with that, I’ve finally finished up this essay, which I’ve been working on for over a year and which keeps having to be updated as new scuffles arose. I have many thoughts on the modern publishing scene, many of them related to class/race/gender/disability issues, but I will focus on a particular question because right now we’re seeing a lot of this getting enacted yet again, this time in the form of the Romance Writers Association debacle. . . .

. . . .

As part of the resulting furor, which seems to me just a flaming trainwreck and shining example of how an organization shouldn’t handle something like this that has included moments like Chuck Tingle disavowing knowing RWA President Damon Suede, authors of color are yet again being called rude for speaking out.

. . . .

In this decade, writers have found themselves at an unsettling and unpredictable moment in publishing as well as history, one that marks major changes in the ways humans consume words. New forces have entered the scene. Among them are the rise of indie publishing, the ability of binge readers to download an entire series to their e-reader in an instant, the accessibility of free media through sites like Project Gutenberg, unforeseen copyright battles involving new technology and business models, and social media with its global reach, to mention only a few.

This moment is shaped by political shifts seeping through from the overall culture. One such shift is an attention to previously-marginalized voices. On the political left, there is a concerted effort to acknowledge that a system of privilege has muted and silenced some groups while privileging those in the mainstream. In recent years, conferences have begun with acknowledging first peoples and their land, cultural repositories are focusing their acquisitions to remedy gaps, and fan conventions are bringing in fans of color and include codes of conduct, to present a few examples of such initiatives.

Also acknowledged is that sometimes celebrated members of the privileged groups have mocked, diminished, or profited from those marginalized voices and their cultures. A manifestation of this acknowledgement is the way in which multiple writing awards have had their names or physical shape changed in recent years, including the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award (now the Children’s Literature Legacy Award), the Melvil Dewey Medal (the new name will be announced in January), the James Tiptree, Jr. Literary Award (now the Otherwise Award), the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer (now The Astounding Award for Best New Writer), and the World Fantasy Award (the physical award has been changed from a bust of H.P. Lovecraft to a design that is not a human shape).

. . . .

Every year as award seasons play out, we see moments that express these changes. Two recent ones have had at their center writers who are women of color making speeches: N.K. Jemisin and Jeanette Ng.

At WorldCon in 2018, while accepting a Hugo for the third year in a row, Nora Jemisin read her speech off her phone, frequently interrupted by a flood of congratulatory texts (which I thought was adorable). Her speech referenced many of the controversies of recent years and particularly reactions from the Hugo-centered Sad/Rabid Puppies group, a conservative-led movement that had produced significant public vitriol at her previous two wins.

. . . .

I watched Jemisin’s speech not sitting in the audience at the Hugo Awards ceremony but nearby in the convention center, amid a crowd gathered to watch the livestream. I heard the applause; I felt the love around me for what she was saying. It was a moment where I felt myself part of fandom, part of one of that fandom’s institutions, itself beleaguered by alt-right attempts at disruption and co-option. Her speech moved me to tears, in the happiest of ways, and I was not alone in that.

But some did not feel themselves included by her speech. One notable reaction was that of Robert Silverberg. Silverberg is familiar to the majority of science fiction fans, but for those who are not, he is a SFWA Grand Master, and winner of multiple Hugos and Nebulas over the course of the past six decades. He remains influential in the field, serving recently as the 2019 Toastmaster at the World Fantasy Convention and has attended every Hugo Awards ceremony since the first one in 1953.

Among other things, Silverberg said:

I have not read the Jemison books. Perhaps they are wonderful works of science fiction deserving of Hugos every year from now on. But in her graceless and vulgar acceptance speech last night, she insisted that she had not won because of ‘identity politics,’ and proceeded to disprove her own point by rehearsing the grievances of her people and describing her latest Hugo as a middle finger aimed at all those who had created those grievances.

. . . .

Let’s fast-forward a year to Jeannette Ng’s speech accepting the (since re-named) Campbell Award at the Hugo Award ceremony in Dublin in 2019. The Campbell Award is given each year to the best writer first published in the previous two years. It was named for John W. Campbell, the editor of Astounding Magazine

. . . .

Ng comes out swinging, declaring “John F. Campbell, for whom this award was named, was a fascist.” And she talks about the evolution of the genre, how it’s grown “wilder and stranger than his mind could imagine or allow.” She speaks about the Hong Kong protests, still very much in the news at the moment of this writing, and which have become increasingly violent since the time of her speech, including live bullets on the part of the police.

So I need say, I was born in Hong Kong. Right now, in the most cyberpunk in the city in the world, protesters struggle with the masked, anonymous stormtroopers of an autocratic Empire. They have literally just held her largest illegal gathering in their history. As we speak they are calling for a horological revolution in our time. They have held laser pointers to the skies and tried to to impossibly set alight the stars. I cannot help be proud of them, to cry for them, and to lament their pain.

Several venerables of SF stepped forward to react to the speech. Their purpose was not to celebrate this passionate declaration of intersection of politics and science fiction, one that followed in the path of so many other science fiction writers, but to make sure this uppity newcomer knew they should have stayed in their place.

Among them were Norman Spinrad, who discovered the controversy three months later and immediately moved to denounce Ng, saying, “Jeanette Ng who won the Campbell award for best new writer used it to screech a foaming at the mouth tirade against John W. Campbell which you can view on You Tube, calling him a racist and a fascist among other things,” and then adding in the comments, “Whether she was wrong or right may be a matter of opinion, but her utter swinishness is not. As I understand it, both Campbell awards-best new writer, years best novel, are indeed continuing under more politically correct names. And whatever Campbell was, he was not a facist [sic] as the word is propperly [sic] used, ala Musselini [sic]. Nor really a racist in terms of whites versus people of color. The woman, among other things, is an ignoramus.”

Like Silverberg, Spinrad is a multiple award winner, longtime author, and highly regarded. I’m a big fan of his writing, which pushed multiple boundaries in the past, and continues to do so in books like Osama the Gun. He was always on my shortlist for SFWA Grand Master when picking them, and I regret that the Grand Master system is structured in such a way that not everyone deserving can get recognized, and that we continue to miss adding worthies, such as Octavia Butler and Terry Pratchett.

But despite his fervent testimonials, Spinrad’s view of Campbell is not shared by everyone, and the name of the award had been, by the time he spoke, already changed. Spinrad declared Ng simply wrong about Campbell; others have spoken of Campbell as being a representative product of his times. Yet, as Cory Doctorow observes in his own essay about this phenomenon:

There’s plenty of evidence that Campbell’s views were odious and deplorable. It wasn’t just the story he had Heinlein expand into his terrible, racist, authoritarian, eugenics-inflected yellow peril novel Sixth Column. Nor was it Campbell’s decision to lean hard on Tom Godwin to kill the girl in “Cold Equations” in order to turn his story into a parable about the foolishness of women and the role of men in guiding them to accept the cold, hard facts of life.

It’s also that Campbell used his op-ed space in Astound­ing to cheer the murders of the Kent State 4. He attributed the Watts uprising to Black people’s latent desire to return to slavery. These were not artefacts of a less-enlightened era. By the standards of his day, Campbell was a font of terrible ideas, from his early support of fringe religion and psychic phenomena to his views on women and racialized people.

. . . .

Many SF writers are used to being the most liberal voice in the room, the proponents of the wildest and wackiest things. But as time has passed, as is the way of things, the boundaries have been stretched farther, and what was once-wild now looks tame at times. There are new forces in the world. And now some of those previously outrageous, convention-challenging voices are putting their energy into protecting the conventions and social mores they created from any further change.

. . . .

Were they ever as liberal as they think themselves? Some, probably/perhaps. At times it seems that the liberalness of many science fiction writers lies more in their perceptions of themselves than in their actions. Isaac Asimov was notorious for harassing women, Randall Garrett notoriously walked up to women at parties and asked them if they wanted to fuck, and early in this century Harlan Ellison thought it fine to grab a fellow writer’s breasts for a comic shtick—during a Hugo ceremony.

In his essay, “Racism and Science Fiction,” Samuel R. Delany recounts incidents encountered in the field and tells the story of a Nebula Awards ceremony where Isaac Asimov said to him, on a night when he’d won multiple Nebulas, “You know, Chip, we only voted you those awards because you’re Negro…!” Asimov was joking, but the fact remains that at a moment when Delany should have been able to celebrate, some of his fellow writers were saying the only reason he’d won was because of his race—and not all of them were joking. (Campbell also features in Delany’s essay.)

There’s also the fact that some well-established SF writers don’t want to admit that any part of their prominence may be due to privilege. Writers are in general seething masses of ego, and this is an understandable, human thing. But it is true. Writers of color, women writers, writers with disabilities, and queer writers have all faced barriers that writers more sheltered by privilege have not, and the ones that have made it in have done so because they were too good to be ignored. Knowing that your place came at someone else’s expense may be difficult to acknowledge, particularly when you were playing the game on the easiest setting while they had to face a harder one.

. . . .

Some traditionally published writers are uncomfortable with the indie model, and I’ve mentioned the years-long struggle that it took to get them into SFWA before. Often these writers are the ones most snobbish within the confines of the traditionally published version. For a writer to be “overly commercial” is, they will gently imply, an unworthy goal, even while tap-dancing around the admission that the colleague they’re slapping that label on is outselling them. This verbal gyration underlies an attitude that science fiction itself has traditionally held towards romance, that it’s more commercial and somehow a lesser form. It’s an odd reflection of a similar assumption sometimes made by literary fiction about F&SF.

This notion that an author wanting money somehow spoils fiction, degrading it away from “art,” is a symptom of the final factor, which is centered on social class. Some of the loudest voices in our culture’s conversations are experiencing difficulty adapting to social changes affecting who gets to talk and therefore resisting the idea of encouraging voices that have been suppressed by social forces (which also involves acknowledging those social forces exist).

Lots of generalizations are made about millennials. Here’s mine: they rub older people the wrong way sometimes because they won’t put up with the bullshit acceptable in the past. Personally, I dig that. I hit the fact that society uses politeness and the expectation that I be “nice” against me on a daily basis, and so the way I see these fierce young folks say “ok boomer” and move on is a revelation and a joy to me. Day by day, I get a little ruder to the people who think nothing of demanding that I cater to their time and energy rather than mine, and it’s the millennials rolling their eyes at the clueless that egg me on.

Link to the rest at The Writing of Cat Rambo

As he was reading the OP, PG was reminded of a conversation he had a long time ago.

While PG was in college, one of his good friends became a prominent campus radical.

After graduation, the two of us crossed paths a few times.

During one of those meetings/long discussions, the friend was living in a large eastern city where he was the founder and editor of a radical left newspaper that was mostly sold on the streets.

PG doesn’t remember a great many things about that conversation, but one statement his friend made has stuck with him.

“Whenever somebody in the government or establishment says something we don’t like and we don’t know how to respond, we just call them a fascist. That always freezes them and they don’t know what to do.”

PG doesn’t claim any particular expertise on current cultural disputes, but the term fascist is apparently an evergreen term used to condemn someone who the speaker doesn’t like and is, thus, irredeemably evil.

PG almost always remembers his conversation with his friend when he reads or hears the term used.

6 thoughts on “The New Rude Masters of Fantasy & Science Fiction – and Romance”

  1. Lots of generalizations are made about millennials. Here’s mine: they rub older people the wrong way sometimes because they won’t put up with the bullshit acceptable in the past.

    The earliest record of this sentiment is found on the Rosetta Stone. The object is convince each generation they are special and unwilling to be bound by mindless strictures of the past. And ever since the Rosetta Stone, it’s been working.

    In fairness, one has to concede the Boomers fell for the same trick.

  2. It is tiring to feel constantly obliged to fight the assumption that conservative = Old White Man. I am not white, not a man, and only old compared to some, but not to many. And the modern science fiction and fantasy scene has failed me, and the legions of readers like me, who have departed long since from the convention scene, the awards scene, and the conference/professional organization scene.

    They have driven everyone from their echo chamber. It makes me sad. This was the literature of ideas–now it is something else.

    • The awarded literature is still one of ideas – their ideas, and nothing else. Outside of the echo chamber, however, other ideas still flourish.

  3. I was done with the modern sci-fi scene ages ago. First it was because of story, when they embraced mundane SF / F. “Mundane,” as far as I can tell, is the version for writers who don’t have imaginations, but still want to say they’re writing SF/F. I read indies, and those tradpub writers who pre-date this millennium. The other part is because of all the woke scolding, from people who “know nothing, Jon Snow.”

    I mean, really, they know nothing, but to quote another character***, “they are arrogant about their ignorance.” Courtney Milan tried to slime a writer who knew more than she did about China in a historical period, and writing truthfully according to that culture at the time made the writer a racist in her mind. She and her minions have done a laughable job ginning up “cases” against other people.

    But Milan, and Ng, et al, also make it hard to trust any fiction that comes from them. You can’t have a story about ideas if you don’t have ideas. If you don’t know anything about the past, if you don’t know how the present came to be the present, and all you know about your grandparents is that they’re “inferior” to you, then how are you supposed to “predict” the future? If you can’t put yourself in your grandmother’s shoes, then you can’t write fantasy or sci-fi races. And if you have such cartoonish ideas about your grandmother’s past — that she was either your grandfather’s victim, or a villain — what inanities will you dream up about your granddaughter’s future? Your sci-fi will be ridiculous.

    Nor was it Campbell’s decision to lean hard on Tom Godwin to kill the girl in “Cold Equations” in order to turn his story into a parable about the foolishness of women and the role of men in guiding them to accept the cold, hard facts of life.

    I’m going to assume this is a lie. The context — where the writer is one of those who thinks “the Other” is some kind of -ist — makes it very plausible that this is a lie. I’ve always understood that the message in the “Cold Equations” was that cold, hard, math and science were the “villains.” That’s the whole point of the title! It’s right there on the tin. There wasn’t a bad guy, there were only good people. The story was Man Against Nature, with Nature (math) as the villain: no matter how good, sweet, kind, and honorable you were, if math said you had to die, then you died. How could anyone who read this story miss that point?

    Every single character in “TCE” carried the Idiot Ball to bring about the Math Doesn’t Care If You’re Good message. The Idiot Ball-factor is why “TCE” is my go-to example for why message fiction sucks. Everyone in my sci-fi class agreed that the girl was the least idiotic of all the other idiots: she had no way to know that the engineers in her society had been taken over by the Marching Morons (CM Kornbluth, it’s in the same anthology). The pilot was dumbest of all: He couldn’t even make like a captain from the Age of Sail and chuck stuff overboard? Beds, tables, desks, chairs?

    In the meantime, I am pleased to see the likes of the Dragon Awards emerge, where the focus is once again on story. Not politics, because the Woke are terminally Comatose, but on the story. Did it win a Hugo? Skip! Did it win a Dragon? Take a closer look. If RWA has burned down their house, let other romance writers take a lesson and build their own new award. I think one organization has already taken the name “chatelaine” for awards, but there are tons of other options, I’m sure.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing a true writer’s organization emerge, a Writer Beware on a broader scale. Have questions about a contract? Want names of good, trusted editors? Curious how to offer audio, or get a book translated? And so forth. But they have to leave politics at the door from the get-go.

    ***Dr. Michael Poole, to his soon-to-be-ex wife in “Koko.”

  4. The fact that people still wish to judge those who came before by the mores of the current time is ridiculous. You can look at just about ANYONE of a prior era and find something that is just plain wrong to modern thinking. That is no reason to pillory them. Judge the work itself, not the person who was simply a product of their era. I’m pretty sure in 100 years that the woke members of that generation will look back at our time and snicker at how childish and unaware we were of THEIR mores.

    If you have a problem with people like Campbell and think he was a fascist et al, DON’T ACCEPT THE AWARD! Don’t be a hypocrite and accept adulations named for a person whom you then rip apart.

    Quite frankly, I don’t know anything about an author whom I’m reading except what they say. I neither know nor care if they are of African, Asian, or Martian descent. I don’t care if it is a male/female/other. I don’t choose stories based upon the author or the publisher but the story itself.

    I guess that makes me out of touch…

  5. There are so many points in the OP that are at least questionable that any complete response would require a long essay (tl/dr I would guess for most readers on this blog) and which I have no intention of writing.

    In part these are questions of ethics where we cannot expect general agreement. I would though hope that we can avoid double standards, which would mean that those who argue that Jemisin had the right to say what she did in her acceptance speech (a point I accept) should also agree that Silverberg had the right to criticise it. Unfortunately, for far too many of Jemisin’s supporters believe that free speech does not extend to disagreeing with her.

    Cory Doctorow’s comments do deserve a response simply because they are so ill informed and stupid. Maybe Campbell did persuade Tom Godwin to kill the girl in “Cold Equations” but, if so, it was the work of a great editor as no-one would remember the story as more than a minor puzzle had the girl survived. The criticism of Heinlein’s “Sixth Column” is simply wrong headed in every respect down to equating concern about Japanese expansionism in 1941 with “yellow peril”.

    As for fascism, I remember it being used by the Trotskyists to describe their Communist opponents over 50 years ago (this was at Oxford back in the 1960s). So it’s been a semantically empty insult used by left wingers for anyone they disagreed with for over 50 years. One can try to rescue it by assigning a meaning based on it’s historical roots – not easy as it seems to be one of the -isms that philosophers have not really tried to tie down – but this is not going to justify Jeanette Ng’s insulting Campbell (a man I accept had many undesirable views). I suspect that such a historically based definition is going to identify few fascists in America amongst the many people to whom this term is currently being applied, other than the individuals who already self identify as fascists (and not all of those would qualify).

Comments are closed.