Social Justice in SF&F

[darryl]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

That would mean, buying the puppies narrative of a secret sect controlling the awards. I don't buy it. It is not an "entrenched orthodoxy", but most of society. Like in your Modesitt quote:

This doesn't follow at all. An "entrenched orthodoxy" can exist in a group which neither reflects wider society nor constitutes a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories abound but are rarely true. Why do we need a conspiracy when the behaviour concerned can be explained simply in terms of human nature. The herd instinct, the desire to be liked and accepted, to be part of something. To be on the winning side. And of course simple self-interest. Particularly where relatively closed groups are involved. No secret sect needed.

Originally Posted by dickloraine

People do simply this. No conspiracy, just a silent majority. Of course extrems exist, like in this article, but that is not who or why books were awarded. Puppies seem to just put anybody under the SWJ label who disagrees with them. But on the other hand, bad puppies don't want to be associated with rabbid puppies, which is done on the other side.

As I said before, both groups are guilty of using labels against the other side. And the books were awarded (or not) because sufficient members of the group voted for them. I don't think anyone can know their reasons for voting the way they did.

Modesitt's articles are probably not far from the truth. Let's face it. Both groups have behaved like spoilt children.

[fjtorres]

Modesitt is mostly correct in his "social clique" analysis but he doesn't go far enough in looking at the motivations. I'd also add in: M-O-N-E-Y.

The phallic symbol award represents a significant sales boost to nominees and winners so one particular clique controlling it for a generation was bound to draw opposition from those cut off from the feeding trough. Especially at a time when a significant portion of sales are leaking out of the grip of both (all three?) camps.

Remember, the cliques have existed for a long time, yet the bloodletting only started recently, as the tradpub collective share of genre revenues started declining.

The award itself stopped being meaningful years and years ago but the money it represents has only gotten more meaningful in recent years. And when money is at stake...

Again, the real issue isn't social issues; it is all about power and money.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

When did you first read it? And have you read it recently?

First read it 25 years or so back, I tend to reread it every 5 years or so.

I always thought Heinlein should of got someone else to finish his books off they tend to start well and then trail off a bit.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Modesitt is mostly correct in his "social clique" analysis but he doesn't go far enough in looking at the motivations. I'd also add in: M-O-N-E-Y.

The phallic symbol award represents a significant sales boost to nominees and winners so one particular clique controlling it for a generation was bound to draw opposition from those cut off from the feeding trough. Especially at a time when a significant portion of sales are leaking out of the grip of both (all three?) camps.

Remember, the cliques have existed for a long time, yet the bloodletting only started recently, as the tradpub collective share of genre revenues started declining.

The award itself stopped being meaningful years and years ago but the money it represents has only gotten more meaningful in recent years. And when money is at stake...

Again, the real issue isn't social issues; it is all about power and money.

But why did it start with the puppies and not from the publishers (by the way, most of the sad puppy books are traditional published)? Or do you mean it is a money and power grab from the puppies? And why wouldn't publishers not just publish the books the puppies like, if there is money to make (wait, they do publish them)?

Sorry, I just don't see this angle as particularly likely.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Geralt

... and cry boo-hoo [...] this hurts my sensibilities.
[...] the setting is a shitty world, shitty things will happen

^That
The (not so) funny point about it is, that this kind of people extend their purificational efforts beyond fiction into reality. Being offended or afraid that someone else might be offended by <fill in here> seems to be the next big thing (after all - everybody needs a hobby) : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-mind/399356/

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Again, the real issue isn't social issues; it is all about power and money.

Ain't it funny though... All the years I nominated and voted I never had *anyone* email a list of *possible* nominees. It's like making generalizations aren't always true. Until this year (when I neither nominated or voted), I've always nominated and voted on what *I* thought was the best piece of work. And I would believe that *most* of the Hugo voters are more like me than the complaints about cliques and SJWs.

Are the Hugos important? Not as important as they were pre-internet. Are they perfect? Not close. But I still believe they are a good representation of what's good in SF from year to year. And I intend to continue to support Worldcon. I've already paid for my Worldcon 75 membership and I intend to continue to nominate and vote.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

But why did it start with the puppies and not from the publishers (by the way, most of the sad puppy books are traditional published)? Or do you mean it is a money and power grab from the puppies? And why wouldn't publishers not just publish the books the puppies like, if there is money to make (wait, they do publish them)?

Sorry, I just don't see this angle as particularly likely.

That is it exactly:
It is a fight between two tradpub camps because the tradpub slice of the SF pie is shrinking.

The sad puppies put up with marginalization for decades so why suddenly start fighting three years ago? What happened in 2013?

One noticeable event: tradpub revenue went flat and started declining as Indie, Inc hit the mainstream. It's just a correlation but money *is* the root of all evil, after all.

SF is behind only romance in ebook adoption and indie penetration. That makes the award boost more important to the tradpubbers. Indies don't whine because they have no expectation of winning awards dished out by traditionalists.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

^That
The (not so) funny point about it is, that this kind of people extend their purificational efforts beyond fiction into reality. Being offended or afraid that someone else might be offended by <fill in here> seems to be the next big thing (after all - everybody needs a hobby) : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-mind/399356/

Seen this one?

http://www.alternet.org/education/ar...w-book-censors

Turns out young conservatives have learned to play the sensitivity game, too.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yup.
On both counts.
We need more chihuahua SF.
Maybe in a remake of A BOY AND HIS DOG.

Ah but then a cat would come along and sue for the fact that cats are being discriminated against. Why even the name of the title "A boy and his dog" could be argued to be racist and biased against felines.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The world of 50 years ago was not the same as the world we live in today, and authors, like everyone else, are a product of the society in which they grew up, so naturally they're going to reflect the values of that society.

Could be. But I'm guessing most of the authors wouldn't like your defense. More likely they saw themselves as rebels against the conformist modern world. Some of those Liz Lutgendorff likes least may think that, when you strip away modern socialization, human nature results in greater exploitation of women. Liz Lutgendorff seems not to agree with, or like, that POV.

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Being offended or afraid that someone else might be offended by <fill in here> seems to be the next big thing (after all - everybody needs a hobby) : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-mind/399356/

Good Atlantic article.


But assuming that Liz Lutgendorff actually read what she attacked, and I think she did, she isn't one of the trigger and microaggression avoidant types criticized in your link.

Having said that, I was taken aback by her claim that she wants to be "challenged by radical visions." Isn't that exactly what the authors she hates were trying to do?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

If anyone mentions Leckie's Ancillary Trilogy as an example of diversity, flip it around on them and ask them why they support slavery, a totalitarian regime and a very rigid class structure

While the protagonist of the series, Breq, is a member of that society, she objects to many elements of it, is no longer convinced of the rightness of her earlier activities, and I suspect will be involved in the downfall of the government by the end of the series.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What is cliched or lazy about it?

It is a term used to describe a concept.

The purpose of language is to communicate. I fail to see why you object to that.

When I see Brad Torgerson, Vox Day or their followers use acronyms like SJW or CHORF, or anti-puppies using terms like neo-nazis or racists, it's just code words for "somebody you ought to hate", and not a term to describe a concept.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

That is very flawed logic you use there. Not all labels are equal. And "german" and "nazi" are very different labels. I would be in no way offended, if you call me german (okay, that depends on the tone in which you are saying it) but I would be offended if you call me a nazi. Don't you see the difference? Black is a label. As in your way would be the bad n... word. Would you say they are the same, since they refer to the same population?

And who decides what labels are equal?

Surely it would make more sense to base your judgment on how people use a word?

I am unaware of anyone using the word "Nazi" in a non-derogatory way (except, obviously, by people who think it is a good thing), but taking your n-word example...

... I believe that word is sometimes used by blacks, about their fellow blacks, and in some mysterious arcane way they call "culture" it loses the negative connotation?

By the way, watch your mouth! The word "black" is very offensive.
Or so some people would have you think. Some people will get offended about anything... stupid labels...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by darryl

Labels, archetypes, stereotypes. All can be useful devices, but of course are very easily abused. The term SJW is useful. Like all labels, it lacks precision. It is not a term of art. But what it does allow is, for instance, for someone to post here to make a particular point or points without having to include an almost certainly lengthy definition. Yes, it does carry a pejorative taint but I think many posters here use it chiefly for convenience (or out of laziness if you must). And let's face it, all sides of the Hugo debate use labels, many more offensive and inaccurate than SJW. Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic that SJW has been singled out when labels like racist, misogynist, sexist, homophobe and stereotypes like old straight white men are being bandied around. And other collective smears like haters of diversity and change. Social Justice itself is hardly a term of art.

SJW is here to stay, like it or not. Wear it with pride if you like, though like the other terms I have quoted here, it is not usually used as praise. Only for denoting a class of people (without real precision) or in a pejorative sense or both.

Thank you. It appears there is someone who actually understands what I was trying to say.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

While the protagonist of the series, Breq, is a member of that society, she objects to many elements of it, is no longer convinced of the rightness of her earlier activities, and I suspect will be involved in the downfall of the government by the end of the series.

Hmm? What's your point?

That is the kind of relationship to an idea that Liz Lutgendorff seems to object to, at least going by, say, her attack of Mistborn.
Many books portray an unjust society... because they are meant to portray the unjustness. And apparently she finds that "shockingly offensive" too.