Then there's the SFWA, the Science Fiction Writers of America. If you haven't been brought in on this round of inside baseball, the SFWA has started appealing to one small, particular demographic, namely the political left.
Now, before you start leaping down my throat, it's not Democrats I'm talking about, it's the really, really left. The hard left that would make Bill Clinton go "Um, no." This is a very narrow translation of liberalism that most liberals would look at funny. EG: One story that meets these standards includes a world where the universe is filled with subservient men, the women rule everything, and there is peace throughout the world ... a story that has every woman I've told it to laughing themselves sick.
Apparently, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for good fiction to meet SFWA standards.
This is a bit of business that has some old-school (and new) SF writers pissed. Names include Harlan Ellison and Mike Resnick, Sarah Hoyt, Cedar Sanderson and Harry Turtledove, and those are just the ones I know. And the first two are no conservatives. But then, they are old school liberals, the type where they may hate what you're saying, and they'll yell at you, but they also expect you to yell back (well, Harlan Ellison does, at least). The current "liberals," for lack of a better term, seem to be interested in nothing but shutting people up.
Author and former SFWA member Sarah Hoyt has chronicled the entire downward spiral of the SFWA and their nutbars, and it caused me to wonder exactly how far down this rabbit hole goes. I'm not brave enough to go spelunking into that particular asylum.
However, I noted something in Hoyt's column, that the SFWA got pissed off over a book with women in chainmail on the cover. Well, one, if it's fantasy, what else are women going to wear? It's either chainmail, leather armor, or platemail (the latter heavy enough to tip someone over like a turtle on their back, so I don't recommend it for anyone).
Then, something occurred to me. Could this hissy fit have been over Chicks in Chain Mail? For those of you who don't know this classic comedy series, it's laugh out loud funny stories in fantasy universes, like the Suburban fantasy anthology Witch Way to the Mall, Strip Mauled, and Fangs for the Mammaries.
The two series have something in common. Two somethings, in fact.
1) They're all edited by Esther Friesner.
2) They're published by Baen books...Sound familiar?
Does anyone else have a bad feeling about this?
And if you don't want to go by the Sarah Hoyt version in gifs, the pure text version of what's been happening is even LESS reassuring.
Now, there are a few problems with everything the SFWA has been pulling. Using feminism as authority structure creates pedantic drivel in favor of a false narrative of multiculturalism (ie: we're going to shove this down your throat, and you will like it, because. Just because). They want writers to effectively write stories about "womyn," gays, transgenders, african-Americans, native Americans, gays, Asian peoples they have no idea about "but hey taoism sounds cool and namaste,yo."
You can view this a few ways. The rabbit hole, making a "women only" race course, putting a Stalin-ish leash on their editors to make certain they're publishing the "right" things, or redefining "literature" as whatever supports the current tint. No matter what you call it, it's not good for writing, storytelling, or the genre. If you wanted to say they're trying to destroy the genre, well, you wouldn't be the first.
Now, my friend Jason has another thought on the matter, namely that Baen is busy taking over the universe of science fiction, and we just can't have that.
|She has a sword.|
No chain mail.
And they are making TONS of money. Metric tons. They are everywhere, and always publishing.
So, a libertarian press making money? And making money with something like Chicks in Chain Mail?
If Jason is right, then this SFWA brough-ha-ha is really a purge in response to Baen. After all, with nimrods this ideologically pure, Baen is downright heretical. So we have the "conservative" juggernaut of Baen versus an ever-more left-leaning SFWA... If Jason's idea is true, then the SFWA has a problem. By catering to smaller and smaller elements of their own preconceptions, they're just throwing good money after bad. Like all of those horrid anti-war propaganda films from 2001 on, I'm sure it makes the producers and writers feel good, but who's going to see it? For every five films like Syriana, they still couldn't match the profit of 300, Iron Man, or Captain America.
by Julie Cochran.
As some of you may know, I escaped from a PhD program not too long ago. Academia is rife with the sort of PC crap the SFWA is doing, but I haven't noticed it in too many POPULAR books or movies. Sure, Hollywood cranks out this drek endlessly, but who watches all of it? 300 was a January release, and it made so much money, they started a sequel immediately (it only took forever to write and produce). So, certainly, people are teaching this stuff in the halls of academia, but when it comes to where the metal hits the road -- where people spend their money -- Batman, Superman, 300, any Marvel film, outperforms that sort of drek every single time. And if The Dark Knight Rises had a feminist message beyond "Anne Hathaway looks good in leather," I missed it (I actually thought the message was "Occupy Wall Street = Bad").
|Burning at 451-degrees F|
and they have the gall
To even talk of Bradbury.
Isn't it nice to see that writers can be as petty as everyone else? Then again, I became a writer because I don't like dealing with people as a rule.
My takeaway from all this? Write good books, and no one will care what gender you are. Honest.
I, for one, won't even NOTICE what gender you are (You can't imagine how long it took me to sort authors by gender, you really can't). If you write bad books, no one will read them, and the SFWA will just start burning its cash, and its credibility -- assuming that hasn't already gone out the window.