Editor of SFWA Bulletin resigns

[theducks]

Are we discussing the CVA cover? did they think they could get the letters any bigger?

BTW I have been reading Lois's stuff since the early days in Analog.

[BeccaPrice]

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 wouldn't mind it so much except that their archaic way of thinking is directly impacting my civil rights. There's some statistic floating around FaceBook (and take that for what it's worth) that the Republicans have floated some huge amount of bills limiting reproductive rights, and not a single job bill.

I don't dare have even a COEXIST bumper sticker on my car, for fear of it being vandalized. So no, it's not that we can or should control how we emotionally respond to things. Some things deserve outrage.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I wouldn't mind it so much except that their archaic way of thinking is directly impacting my civil rights. There's some statistic floating around FaceBook (and take that for what it's worth) that the Republicans have floated some huge amount of bills limiting reproductive rights, and not a single job bill.

Can we please not talk about my former political party? Getting functionally kicked out when the platform changed wasn't fun.

As for the way things are going, I've noticed it doesn't matter whether or not someone is really full of it. What matters more is whether or not someone believes them, and if people want to believe them. And right now, the US seems to be full of people who want to believe that there's a vast conspiracy out to censor them and their version of The Truth.

[ApK]

Did I drift into the P&R forum? I thought I had to opt in, and I'm certain I didn't.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by theducks

Are we discussing the CVA cover? did they think they could get the letters any bigger?

BTW I have been reading Lois's stuff since the early days in Analog.

More or less.
There are two versions; the generic flying car with the enormous letters cover which is harmless and meaningless, and the one a rendition of Ivan-you-idiot in a scene with the two sisters. Some people find the scantily clad beautiful people annoying. Which is a proper response because the characters in their milleau *are* annoying that way.

http://aidanmoher.com/blog/wp-conten...er-Bujold.jpeg

[ApK]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

http://aidanmoher.com/blog/wp-conten...er-Bujold.jpeg

Is that what Ivan is supposed to look like? Hm.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

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.

I am surprised about this statement. Unfortunately, censorship reaches far beyond the realm of governments. In particular readers writing to an editor of a magazine requesting certain pieces or opinions not to be published are de facto asking for censorship.

Editor based censorship is, in my opinion, just ad despicable as censorship by government.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Soldim

I am surprised about this statement. Unfortunately, censorship reaches far beyond the realm of governments. In particular readers writing to an editor of a magazine requesting certain pieces or opinions not to be published are de facto asking for censorship.

Editor based censorship is, in my opinion, just ad despicable as censorship by government.

This makes absolutely no sense.

You can't publish everything. Editors, by definition, pick and choose what they're going to publish. Yet you are suggesting that some criteria, as determined by you, are unacceptable to use - or are you arguing that all selection criteria are unacceptable? How exactly would that work? Again, you can't publish everything.

Arguing that editors shouldn't be allowed to choose what they publish in their space, based on whatever criteria (personal choice, the requests of their readers, the requests or demands of their employers, etc etc) is arguing for a bizarre and utterly unworkable publishing space.

The members of SFWA pay the editor's salary. They're allowed to determine, via their elected officials, what gets paid for and published in their magazine. To argue otherwise is to argue, in essence, for the end of private property and free speech.

They don't have a media monopoly, and there are a gazillion spaces that people can publish their sexist guff. No speech is being suppressed by the members of SFWA having their say.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by meeera

This makes absolutely no sense.

That's a subtly worded, eh, opinion.

You can't publish everything. Editors, by definition, pick and choose what they're going to publish.

Columns, what we are talking about in this thread, generally offer a personal point of view from the writer. Certainly magazines and news-papers have criteria for selecting columnists. However, the great majority of columns do not represent the view of the editors and/or the venue in which they are published.

I have never heard of a quality magazine or news-paper where an editor decided on a column by column basis which ones will get published and which ones won't.

Yet you are suggesting that some criteria, as determined by you,

I don't quite understand the necessity to get personal; the comment seems rather inappropriate.

are unacceptable to use - or are you arguing that all selection criteria are unacceptable? How exactly would that work? Again, you can't publish everything.

Strawman.

Arguing that editors shouldn't be allowed to choose what they publish in their space, based on whatever criteria (personal choice, the requests of their readers, the requests or demands of their employers, etc etc) is arguing for a bizarre and utterly unworkable publishing space.

I don't think it is such a black and white issue, especially with regards to a column series.

The members of SFWA pay the editor's salary. They're allowed to determine, via their elected officials, what gets paid for and published in their magazine.

In that respect, asking for different columnists makes sense -- dictating the contents of individual columns in my opinion censorship.

To argue otherwise is to argue, in essence, for the end of private property and free speech.

To me that is a rather empty statement, not quite in proportion to the issues being discussed.

They don't have a media monopoly, and there are a gazillion spaces that people can publish their sexist guff.

Ah, I get the bias. Never mind.

[caleb72]

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?

I would say that the romances would have more of an impact simply because they are not targeted at men. The last thing men are going to want is to see that putting ripped, buff bods on a book aimed at women is going to be successful. Firstly, it gets a bit closer to a similar objectification that women have been suffering and secondly, because it's much more likely to make a man feel inadequate in the eyes of women. The only worse thing you could do is expose a very sizable...

Of course, you don't even have to sell sex to have this kind of reaction. Just make sure the guy owns a yacht or some other obscenely expensive status symbol.

Strangely enough, I think don't this has as much impact if the book is aimed at men - like James Bond and other macho "men's adventure" type heroes. The effect is different when the character is your fantasy rather than the fantasy of the opposite sex.

Of course, this could all be utter crap, but it seemed plausible as I was writing it.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I would say that the romances would have more of an impact simply because they are not targeted at men. The last thing men are going to want is to see that putting ripped, buff bods on a book aimed at women is going to be successful. Firstly, it gets a bit closer to a similar objectification that women have been suffering and secondly, because it's much more likely to make a man feel inadequate in the eyes of women. The only worse thing you could do is expose a very sizable...

I don't worry about romance covers. I tend to find them silly, though. Dump the hot chick with the low-cut dress, and go kill some monsters.

Of course, you don't even have to sell sex to have this kind of reaction. Just make sure the guy owns a yacht or some other obscenely expensive status symbol.

It doesn't bother me. I long ago decided to eschew envy. I've heard that it isn't easy being green.

Strangely enough, I think don't this has as much impact if the book is aimed at men - like James Bond and other macho "men's adventure" type heroes. The effect is different when the character is your fantasy rather than the fantasy of the opposite sex.

It's not about whose fantasy the character is. It's what the character is doing. I assume the dude has a love life, I just don't care about it.

Of course, this could all be utter crap, but it seemed plausible as I was writing it.

It's not your fault. Spending your entire life upside down must have odd consequences.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

It's not your fault. Spending your entire life upside down must have odd consequences.

Karma for that.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Soldim

I am surprised about this statement. Unfortunately, censorship reaches far beyond the realm of governments. In particular readers writing to an editor of a magazine requesting certain pieces or opinions not to be published are de facto asking for censorship.

Editor based censorship is, in my opinion, just ad despicable as censorship by government.

Even accepting your viewpoint of censorship for a moment...no one DID censor them. No one threatened to not publish them. Readers asking for certain types of columns, covers or articles to not be published isn't censorship, therefor the authors should not have started yelling about it. In this case, it seems to be an attempt to move the focus off of the complaint:
"You complained about my article, rather than address the issue and its merits or lackthereof, I will yell censorship. I can "write" whatever I want."

Yes, you can. BUT, Readers have every right to exit an organization if they don't like the publications, rules, columns, etc. They have every right to take their money elsewhere and not buy a magazine. That is not censorship at all. Thus speaking up and threatening to leave if a magazine continues to publish things they don't want to read, does not call for authors to write a column yelling censorship.

By yelling about such a controversial topic, it shifts the focus of conversation and attempts to make the authors some sort of victim *rather than addressing the topic at hand.*

Now again, I am not even attempting to say that their original article WAS sexist. What I'm saying is that they chose a response that in no way cleared up the issue, did not offer dialogue, didn't even offer much of a denial (romance novels do it! Go pick on them if you're so worried about the issue!) and didn't show a willingness to step back and talk about the history of women in sci/fi, problems they had and whether those problems still exists (unconsciously in some cases?) today. Worse, even if they didn't think they had done anything wrong, they didn't appear to consider or state that they were all about the WRITING and the STORY and anything else that came across was a mistake.

Missed opportunities all over the table.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

More or less.
There are two versions; the generic flying car with the enormous letters cover which is harmless and meaningless, and the one a rendition of Ivan-you-idiot in a scene with the two sisters. Some people find the scantily clad beautiful people annoying. Which is a proper response because the characters in their milleau *are* annoying that way.

http://aidanmoher.com/blog/wp-conten...er-Bujold.jpeg

I don't care for that cover (and didn't see it when I looked. I saw the car one.) It appears to be going for that "pulp" fiction look, a retro look that some publishers bring back now and then. I've read enough Lois M. Bujold that it wouldn't put me off.

In truth, ... I don't like most of Baen covers. They often have a retro look that they have never moved away from. If I, as as self-pub'd author put out a cover that looked like the one on Baen's site for "Miles in Love" or "Miles, Mutants, and Microbes" -- just as two examples, I'd be lambasted for not spending money on a cover and the comments would roll in about how indie authors had terrible covers. I'd hear about the fonts looking plastic and cut and pasted on, etc. I don't even want to imagine the emails I'd get (and I have gotten plenty of them about some of my covers in the past.)

Maybe their covers is their way of branding because when I see a cover like that, I suspect it is probably a Baen cover. I've read enough Baen to ignore the cover and read the blurb or check out the author. BUT their covers do not entice me or sell me on the book. Replacing current covers with scantily clad alien/woman/man on the cover doesn't help matters any. I still wince.

[DiapDealer]

'I' before 'E' except after 'C'
(and when it sounds like 'A' as in 'neighbor' or 'weigh').

'Lady' as a noun, makes no one frown.

Spoiler:

Too soon?