Social Justice in SF&F

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

I think you misunderstood the foundation of the article. She didn't just criticize a random bunch of old sci-fi novels. What she talk about is a 2011 vote based list of "Top 100 Science-Fiction, Fantasy Books".

I think it makes sense to criticize which books a majority of readers chooses to place at the top 100. What she aims at is not the old books themselves, but the preferences of readers, present time.

A group of readers who do not share her particular prejudices. Please read her mostly ridiculous criticisms of each of the books concerned. And, of course, her then condemnation of not only those books but of the current state of science fiction and fantasy writing based on her criticism of those books.

[AnotherCat]

I think the only question is Liz "Who"? As far as I can determine the author is a Liz "Nobody" who happens to have some activist views which she has suddenly found a place to vent them in (a weekly that has a soft spot for both of untested youngsters and the promotion of activist views).

In which case, in my opinion, her views are not even worth paying any attention to let alone discussing (but those of a respected critic, or of a person having some history of balanced expression would be).

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

. . . her views are not even worth paying any attention to let alone discussing (but those of a respected critic, or of a person having some history of balanced expression would be).

By this theory, shouldn't the Hugo awards themselves be ignored? Instead we should only pay attention to literary awards selected by a distinguished committee.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

By this theory, shouldn't the Hugo awards themselves be ignored? Instead we should only pay attention to literary awards selected by a distinguished committee.

So you are claiming that Liz "Who" is providing the results of a ballot that was conducted in a similar manner to that for the Hugo awards rather than her just expressing her own opinions?

I think that you need to go back and read the article.

But that is all I have to say on the matter, I do not allow myself to waste time transiting the personal views of article writers of no merit.

[MikeB1972]

You'd think she would have given a big shout out for Dune at least, a shadowy cabal of women and their thralls who manipulate events behind the scenes - you'd think they would like the Bene Gesserit

[darryl]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

You'd think she would have given a big shout out for Dune at least, a shadowy cabal of women and their thralls who manipulate events behind the scenes - you'd think they would like the Bene Gesserit

Powerful woman in control, yes. But a breeding program? Culminating in a male? I don't think she'd like that very much.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by darryl

Powerful woman in control, yes. But a breeding program? Culminating in a male? I don't think she'd like that very much.

Well, they were meant to have complete control over the male, so yeah, I think that works. It only went wrong because instructions were ignored, damn that Jessica, pesky wabbit.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Well, they were meant to have complete control over the male, so yeah, I think that works. It only went wrong because instructions were ignored, damn that Jessica, pesky wabbit.

True. Traitoress. But then, based on her "reasoning" with the Anne McCaffery Dragon Riders story, she would equate the sexual encounters to produce the desired offspring as rapes, and the unwitting, seduced males as rapists. Poor innocent Baron Harkonnen would be thus branded, though Duke Atreides may escape as it seems his BG actually loved him.

My apologies, everyone. I will give this up now but I just couldn't resist.

[DrNefario]

Well, rather than speculating about an imaginary adversary, I decided to look up the writer's actual post about Dune using the magic of Google. Oddly, it has nothing at all to say about the roles of the sexes.

[Pulpmeister]

I don't believe in "100 best" lists and their like. If you browse any twenty of these lists you'll get twenty different ideas of the "100 best".

Most of the titles on the list I've never heard of; but that just proves I'm not bang up to date with the current f&sf.

If the original article had been about the 100 best crime, or even any 100 random well-known novels from the same period, the results would have been the same. Literature, including f&sf, exists in, and reflects, its own time. That is inevitable.

Male authors, by and large, produce books with male protagonists because, in part, men find it easier to write convincingly about men; women naturally tend to have female protagonists because they find them easier to write convincingly about women than men.

I wonder if our critic has read "100 best romance novels" of the same period (early 19th C to present day). Barbara Cartland is a study in gender imbalance.

But heigh-ho! The Guardian's clickbait sure worked!

[hildea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the very greatest respect, hildea, I was addressing what the article actually said. It said that its author found the books on the list "shockingly offensive". That is the issue I addressed in the post you kindly referenced.

The article says, and I quote:

I was making the point that to called a book "offensive" simply because it reflects the social attitudes of its time, which differ from those of today, is silly. Do you disagree?

I agree, mostly.

"Mostly" because sometimes I do find myself suprised and disappointed (which I'd translate to "shocked" if I was writing a clickbait article) by attitudes in old books -- like when I found my ABC from 1975, and was dismayed by how sexist it was. Growing up at that time, I remember boys and girls playing together, and gender neutral toys instead of this "pink is for girls, the rest of the rainbow is for boys" which plagues us from the toy industry today. So when I found my ABC giving the message: "Boys are childish and can be expected to make messes and destroy things, girls are mature and can be expected to tidy up after the boys", that surprised me, a lot. (This message is, of course, unfair against both girls and boys. Stereotypes hurt everybody.)

We still disagree about whether Lutgendorff is complaning about old books versus the presence of old books on a new list, but others have made the same point, and I'm not sure I have anything to add.

Also, there are more interesting points raised in this thread, so I'll go on to some of them.

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's fair enough, but does that fact that a book has a gender imbalance mean that it's offensive? Jane Austen's books all have female protagonists, but that doesn't offend me as a male reader. Why should I be offended if an author chooses to write books from a female (or male) perspective? That's their free choice. I may choose not to read such a book, but I'm not offended by it. The romance genre today is completely dominated by books aimed at women. I don't find that offensive. Why should a woman be offended at works of SF and fantasy targeted at a male readership?

I'd like to unpack this. Note: I'm not saying the following statements are things you said -- it's possible extensions of what you described, which you may or may not agree with, with my opinions on them:

• An author writes only, or most, protagonists of one gender. No problem. Describes several of my favourite authors.
• An author writes only, or most, characters of one gender. Other characters tend not to do interesting things in their stories, and are mostly described in terms of their relationship to the dominant gender. I'll probably want to avoid such books, and will be grateful for reviewers who point them out to me.
• A genre contains only, or most, protagonists of one gender. Might be a problem. I'd certainly understand and might actively support efforts to increase the balance -- like specialised anthologies and other efforts to raise awareness among readers, authors, and publishers.
• A genre has more readers among one gender than the other. No problem. But if this is used to justify making fans of the minority gender feel unwelcome, or dismiss their concerns, that is sexist, and a problem. (As an aside, I agree with meera that SF and fantasy has a lot of readers of all genders -- might not be 50/50, but probably not terribly far from that.)
• An author says their books are aimed at one gender. If they mean they expect to have a majority of readers among one gender, that's no problem (though it may or may not be accurate). But if this is used to justify -- well, see previous point.
• Someone says a genre is aimed at one gender. See the two previous points.
• Someone says a book is aimed at a specific gender based on the gender of the protagonist, or that they themselves will only read books with protagonists with the same gender as themselves. Silly and narrowminded.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Male authors, by and large, produce books with male protagonists because, in part, men find it easier to write convincingly about men; women naturally tend to have female protagonists because they find them easier to write convincingly about women than men.

I agree with you about "100 best" lists, but I don't think what you wrote above is correct, or complete. There's a tendency that everybody read books about men, and women read books about women. (There's a similar tendency for race: Books about white people are considered to be for everybody, and books about people of color for people of color.) So women will be more used to reading and writing about men than vice versa.

Here's an interesting article about price winning books: http://nicolagriffith.com/2015/05/26...to-win-awards/ Summary:

When women win literary awards for fiction it’s usually for writing from a male perspective and/or about men. The more prestigious the award, the more likely the subject of the narrative will be male.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by hildea

[*]A genre has more readers among one gender than the other. No problem. But if this is used to justify making fans of the minority gender feel unwelcome, or dismiss their concerns, that is sexist, and a problem. (As an aside, I agree with meera that SF and fantasy has a lot of readers of all genders -- might not be 50/50, but probably not terribly far from that.)

If we switch group for gender as I don't believe its a simple Male/Female/Bunny divide, you will find men that like chick lit and women that read Car Manuals and simply trying to class everyone as one gender or the other is pointless.

Then I don't agree with this one, you risk losing your core fans if you try to write to be inclusive to a different group, some genres are what they are.

e.g Try writing a Recency Romance that appeals to the section of society that watches Top Gear and Gadget Man and you are going to be so far off genre that your original readers have left.
For a real like example Laurell K Hamiltons switch for the Anita Blake books from Urban Fantasy to Fang Porn lost a lot of her original readers.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Then I don't agree with this one, you risk losing your core fans if you try to write to be inclusive to a different group, some genres are what they are.

That makes the assumption, that the core fans read the genre because of the thing. I don't think that is true. People don't read fantasy or crime or whatever because of how they handle (or not handle) for example gender. Being more inclusive doesn't need to be against the core group. Changing the genre would be. And even that is debatable.

I do not talk about a heavy handed aproach. There are many examples of current fantasy books, which incorporate all kind of different people and they are major hits in the "core group" and sometimes (Game of Thrones) even engage new readers from outside the genre.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I do not talk about a heavy handed aproach. There are many examples of current fantasy books, which incorporate all kind of different people and they are major hits in the "core group" and sometimes (Game of Thrones) even engage new readers from outside the genre.

Another example is the "Harry Potter" series, which brought in huge numbers of readers to the fantasy genre who wouldn't normally read it.