Editor of SFWA Bulletin resigns

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rizla

An eye-opener. If it is run by myopic and arrogant people, does it mean the SFWA is damaging to the genre?

It might be taking steps on the road to senility/obsolescence.

They do some good meaningful work on behalf of authors (unlike the "Authors' Guild")--like their flagging of the contracts at Random House's Predatory Press Hydra--but they are clearly a bit backwards in their worldview (which doesn't help their credibility, long-term, in a genre that requires open minds to read and write) in focusing almost exclusively on the ways and venues of traditional publishing (once Hydra tweaked their predatory contracts to more closely ressemble traditional contracts, they shut up--the fact that the terms remained predatory doesn't bother them). Where other genre author associations are giving indie published authors consideration for membership (they constitute 30-50% of recent genre works for romance and SF, after all) the SFWA is still hung up on "validation via contract" and last century practices.

So it's not just their sensitivity to members' sensitivities that needs work.

Perhaps the incoming leadership can blow off some of the barnacles before ossification sets in. (Fingers and assorted limbs crossed.)

[BeccaPrice]

Given the ages of the two offenders, I think we'll see attitudes change as the older generation dies off.

[BillSmithBooks]

All I know is that Jean Rabe is a tremendously talented, kind-hearted generous person who has given her all to help writers over the decades I have known her.

The cover is...tame. Annoying is you really have nothing better to get worked up about, but tame...certainly less offensive than a lot of romance covers. Oh, but there's no uprising about beefcake covers. Seen plenty of Conan covers where the Barbarian is one mis-step away from terrible embarrassment.

The articles are undoubtedly sexist...fine, write, criticise, have a party. The wonderful thing about freedom of speech is letting small-minded people sound their ignorances in public for the whole world to see and then mocking them for it.

Everyone has grievances, especially in this day and age where it is trivial to round up the Internet lynch mob and try to silence a very politically incorrect voice.

I think Orson Scott Card is a total dink for his position on homosexuality and gay marriage but I wouldn't dream of saying he should be prevented from showing the whole world he is a bigot.

Creating such a tempest in a brazier* that Jean feels forced to resign is just shameful.

* Yes, that's intentional

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It might be taking steps on the road to senility/obsolescence.

They do some good meaningful work on behalf of authors (unlike the "Authors' Guild")--like their flagging of the contracts at Random House's Predatory Press Hydra--but they are clearly a bit backwards in their worldview (which doesn't help their credibility, long-term, in a genre that requires open minds to read and write) in focusing almost exclusively on the ways and venues of traditional publishing (once Hydra tweaked their predatory contracts to more closely ressemble traditional contracts, they shut up--the fact that the terms remained predatory doesn't bother them). Where other genre author associations are giving indie published authors consideration for membership (they constitute 30-50% of recent genre works for romance and SF, after all) the SFWA is still hung up on "validation via contract" and last century practices.

So it's not just their sensitivity to members' sensitivities that needs work.

Perhaps the incoming leadership can blow off some of the barnacles before ossification sets in. (Fingers and assorted limbs crossed.)

I agree with this, although since I'm indie, it may appear self-serving. But the real point is that it shouldn't all be about "contract" or "paid" but whether or not it is predatory. I think the original rules probably meant well, but SWFA need authors who are successful--and that is being redefined by sales numbers, not contracts. If they don't have those authors in their ranks, they will be missing a big part of the equation. One of the things that groups like this can help with is imparting knowledge and mentoring. They are going to be missing a big piece of that knowledge/success because they shut their doors to a new way of doing business.

I think they will lose authors too because some of them who have only been trad published are going to start spending more time going indie. If the attitude in the organization "shuts them out" they will leave. They will have less to say and less they are willing and able to contribute simply because of the attitude.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

All I know is that Jean Rabe is a tremendously talented, kind-hearted generous person who has given her all to help writers over the decades I have known her.

The cover is...tame. Annoying is you really have nothing better to get worked up about, but tame...certainly less offensive than a lot of romance covers. Oh, but there's no uprising about beefcake covers. Seen plenty of Conan covers where the Barbarian is one mis-step away from terrible embarrassment.

The articles are undoubtedly sexist...fine, write, criticise, have a party. The wonderful thing about freedom of speech is letting small-minded people sound their ignorances in public for the whole world to see and then mocking them for it.

Everyone has grievances, especially in this day and age where it is trivial to round up the Internet lynch mob and try to silence a very politically incorrect voice.

I think Orson Scott Card is a total dink for his position on homosexuality and gay marriage but I wouldn't dream of saying he should be prevented from showing the whole world he is a bigot.

Creating such a tempest in a brazier* that Jean feels forced to resign is just shameful.

* Yes, that's intentional

I don't know her, but I have read several columns by Resnick and some of his fiction. And quite frankly I was surprised that he took the "personally offended that anyone is offended" route. He's a smart man. He's well-written (as in able to convey his thoughts well). Even if he didn't believe he was in the wrong, he did not step back and try to understand the other point of view at all and that surprised me. Pointing to other instances in the industry (romance novels) and in such a...manner as he chose to do so, was insulting and off-point. The censorship argument was simply insane. He's been around long enough to know that censorship applies to government action--and not to a magazine where readers have every right to refuse to buy it or write to the editor. He could have used the opportunity to start a dialogue. He could have used the opportunity to write another column where he explored how women in sci/fi in the past haven't been so successful--and why. There are a number of authors who used initials rather than submit as women.

Just a lot of routes that could have been.

It is a shame the editor felt she had to resign.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Just a lot of routes that could have been.

It is a shame the editor felt she had to resign.

It is a shame the debate ballooned that way.
The core of the objectification debate is about power; in the olden days, people irritated, annoyed, or offended by it were powerless to even voice an opinion. Which is why the response sent so many ballistic and ended with the "lady editor" resigning: either she had the power to keep it from spiraling into a mess but saw nothing wrong until it was too late or she saw a problem but was powerless to prevent it.
Either way, moving on was probably her best hope to cool the overheated debate.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

The cover is...tame. Annoying is you really have nothing better to get worked up about, but tame...certainly less offensive than a lot of romance covers. Oh, but there's no uprising about beefcake covers. Seen plenty of Conan covers where the Barbarian is one mis-step away from terrible embarrassment.

Y'know, has anyone bothered to research romance covers' effects on male self- image?

Although I'd make a case that G.I.Joe has more of an impact, since that's a show actually pointed at boys. Or maybe Spongebob?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by teh603

Y'know, has anyone bothered to research romance covers' effects on male self- image?

Although I'd make a case that G.I.Joe has more of an impact, since that's a show actually pointed at boys. Or maybe Spongebob?

That's the thing though--saying there is no uprising over another cover type is basically saying, "Women do it to us, therefore we can do it to them." THAT sounds like maybe underneath it, the men in question recognize there might be a problem with it.

Which has been my issue all along. Instead of tackling the issue as if it might be a real issue, it was all dodge and muster and finger pointing at something else rather than giving it any serious thought.

[BeccaPrice]

One of the reasons I love my kindle is that I don't have to put up with shirtless dudes on the cover.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

One of the reasons I love my kindle is that I don't have to put up with shirtless dudes on the cover.

Or shirtless females either. I really don't like the newer style of having naked people on the front of books where they are carefully, *almost* showing nothing. I really find that sort of thing unnecessary and in bad taste. Very avoidable.

It was bad enough when romance was going down the hysterically funny "Fabian" route where every guy had huge muscles, torn or half buttoned shirt and a swooning woman fluttering helplessly about. Nowadays ... oh never mind. Let's just say I don't even bother to buy the stuff. I wonder if that is part of the reason I don't read romance anymore. I've never really thought about it. But I don't shop for it anymore. Most romance I read these days is because it's a side plot to a mystery or UF.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Or shirtless females either. I really don't like the newer style of having naked people on the front of books where they are carefully, *almost* showing nothing. I really find that sort of thing unnecessary and in bad taste. Very avoidable.

It was bad enough when romance was going down the hysterically funny "Fabian" route where every guy had huge muscles, torn or half buttoned shirt and a swooning woman fluttering helplessly about. Nowadays ... oh never mind. Let's just say I don't even bother to buy the stuff. I wonder if that is part of the reason I don't read romance anymore. I've never really thought about it. But I don't shop for it anymore. Most romance I read these days is because it's a side plot to a mystery or UF.

I'm a big fan of BAEN but their recent set of covers for the Poul Anderson Dominic Flandry books...annoy me... Double pandering there. (Plus I have the 80's paperback with the non-pander covers.)

However, the same approach to the latest Bujold Cover doesn't bother me at all. Mostly because the cover reflects both the tone of the book and an actual scene from the book.

Context matters, I guess.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'm a big fan of BAEN but their recent set of covers for the Poul Anderson Dominic Flandry books...annoy me... Double pandering there. (Plus I have the 80's paperback with the non-pander covers.)

However, the same approach to the latest Bujold Cover doesn't bother me at all. Mostly because the cover reflects both the tone of the book and an actual scene from the book.

Context matters, I guess.

Context definitely matters. I love Patricia Briggs' work, but I loathed the cover for Moon Called. I thought it couldn't get worse until Blood Bound came out. Because not only could it be considered gratuitous, it doesn't fit the story. She's a mechanic. A CAR MECHANIC. How many of them do you know that run around dressed like those covers? Zero.

On top of that, they're ugly.

That is the one book I remember leaving at home for a trip. I had been so looking forward to reading it, and I honestly don't care what people see me reading, but I had no intention of carting that thing around and reading it on a plane. Ugly. Such covers don't do her work justice.

I love to tout her work and tell everyone I know what a great author she is, but if I didn't already know that, I probably never would have read that series. The cover doesn't make me think of a great mystery or a well-plotted and carefully detailed urban fantasy. I'd have never picked that book up off the B&N shelf while browsing and purchased it. Luckily I'd read enough of her work to already love her writing style.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'm a big fan of BAEN but their recent set of covers for the Poul Anderson Dominic Flandry books...annoy me... Double pandering there. (Plus I have the 80's paperback with the non-pander covers.)

However, the same approach to the latest Bujold Cover doesn't bother me at all. Mostly because the cover reflects both the tone of the book and an actual scene from the book.

Context matters, I guess.

OHMYGOD. That is one ugly cover. And you're right. I wouldn't buy the book. I've never read the author, but I wouldn't even give that book a second glance. It just makes me think the whole thing must be tasteless. Sure, don't judge a book by a cover, but some book covers just cause such a reaction you don't want a thing to do with them. That is certainly one.

[BeccaPrice]

And it's such a shame, too, because Lois Bujold is anything but tasteless. I love just about everything that she's written (well, the Hallowed Hunt took some getting used to, and I'm still not sure about that dogleg in the plot that happens about 2/3 of the way through, but it's growing on me.)

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by teh603

Y'know, has anyone bothered to research romance covers' effects on male self- image?

Although I'd make a case that G.I.Joe has more of an impact, since that's a show actually pointed at boys. Or maybe Spongebob?

That's an interesting subject for debate, one that's been raging on college campuses for decades and sometimes it turns into, "If it offends somebody, ban it," regardless of the First Ammendment.

But it often turns out that "some content is more equal than others."

Once certain types of speech become "intolerable" it is a slippery slope towards banning anything that the decision makers don't like. That's not a good society to be in.

I guess perhaps I am keenly sensitive to this because as a kid, the things I loved most -- D&D, comic books, rock & roll, etc. -- were criticized as evil, corrupting, "tools of the devil" and there were lots of efforts to ban, remove, eliminate and demonize the fans of these products.

Eventually I came to realize that the people saying these things were Full of Crap (tm).

The people pushing sexist stereotypes are also Full of Crap(tm) in their own way. But it's a free world and people are allowed to be foolish and ignorant. Let them...and show the rest of the world a better way to be and live.

I wish we lived in a world where no one felt harmed or shamed or felt anything else negative by a fantasy book cover. I'm a flabby guy who isn't offended by Conan types because I am who I am and I am proud of it; I am comfortable in my (oversized) skin. I enjoy "Redneck" jokes as much as the next guy even though, demographically I am one (and there's a bit of truth in many of them). I am part of Geek Nation and damned proud of it...and yet Shatner's "Have You Ever Kissed a Girl" skit is hysterical -- be yourself and show the world that the some people are full of it.

We can't control what the world puts out there. We can only control how we emotionally respond to the things we encounter.