ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Mailvox: Mike Resnick clarifies

One of the chief targets of the SFWA pinkshirts corrects two misconceptions and explains a few things concerning Bulletingate:
A couple of corrections. I -asked- Laura not to get involved in this. I know how much vituperation can get spewn by the hatemongers.

Also, I had nothing to do with the Campbell Award. I never created it, administered it, or won it.

For those who haven't read the offending articles (in which case, you have a lot in common with the screamers): in issue #200, at the request of our (female) editor, we wrote a very complimentary article about editors of that gender...but we had the temerity to call them "ladies" rather than "females", and to state that Bea Mahaffey, who edited Other Worlds 63 years ago and died a couple of decades ago (and was a close personal friend of mine) was beautiful. Those were sins #1 and #2. After the hate mail began appearing, we committed Sin #3 in issue #202: we defended our right to call Bea Mahaffey beautiful, and our (female) editor's right to run a generic, non-naked, non-bare-breasted warrior woman on the cover. They're still screaming for our deaths by slow torture. :-)

It got so bad that our editor, Jean Rabe, resigned, not just as editor but as a member of SFWA. And for the record, I hired her as my assistant on the Stellar Guild line of books 5 minutes later.
Corrections duly noted. Although one can only imagine the shrieks of outrage when Mr. Resnick's shockingly sexist paternalism becomes known to the pinkshirts.  I think it goes without saying that neither Jim Hines nor John Scalzi would ever be so appallingly sexist as to attempt to silence a woman's voice in this oppressive and demeaning manner.  They're much more inclined to hide behind, or wear, a woman's skirt than to protect her.

Mr. Resnick, on the other hand, is sufficiently old school to wish to shield his daughter from the hatemongering pinkshirts, for which one can only commend him.  And his Stellar Guild line promises to be a significant step up for Ms Rabe from the Bulletin. The idea of publishing collaborations between established writers and their proteges is a good one and something I can fully support, having been the beneficiary of a similar collaboration with the Original Cyberpunk in the early days of my SF/F career.

It is amusing to note that despite SFWA being an organization originally founded to professionalize the relations between SF writers and SF publishers, this latter-day parody finds itself engaged in furious attacks on new model editors and publishers like Mr. Resnick and myself.  One suspects that one factor contributing to the pinkshirts' unmitigated rage is their shattered dreams, as Judith Tarr describes in the following manner:
Now, of course, there are so many more options. Chances are the author will still go broke–all those stories of ebook gold mines are exceptions, not the rule, especially for authors without large followings or very up-to-date, popular, trendy subject matter. But the books will see the light of day as ebooks, print-on-demand books, audiobooks, even games or graphic novels. That doesn’t help the authors of ten or twenty or more years ago who saw their hopes crushed, their dreams shattered, and their books rejected by the one standard that validated them in publishers’ terms: money and sales.
It is not a coincidence that the vast majority of SFWA members who Mr. Resnick describes as "screamers" are complete nonentities in the field, most of whom have published little more than the bare minimum to qualify for membership. They've taken over the organization just as it has become entirely irrelevant to the wider SF/F market.

Labels: ,

56 Comments:

Blogger redlegben June 23, 2013 4:47 AM  

Keep going Mike. Stopping producers is a zero sum game eventually.

Well done Vox for educating us all in the Black Knight arts.

Anonymous dh June 23, 2013 5:01 AM  

This is a nice lesson on how to hold your ground. The guy is doing a nice job defending his position, and looks and sounds very reasonable.

Contrast with the screamers (nice word, btw) and they sound shrill and reactionary and petulant.

Blogger Rantor June 23, 2013 5:54 AM  

The more I read about this ridiculous scandal, the more it seems that feminists must believe they are not ladies and not beautiful and thus insulted that someone would write an article about something they are not. Rush once said that feminism was designed to give ugly women access to the political mainstream. It has become obvious that this refers to something just as much on the inside as the outside.

Anonymous Fail Burton June 23, 2013 6:25 AM  

The president of the SFWA, John Scalzi, recently posted yet another of his insipid racist poems to white privilege. Scalzi measures the accuracy of his theory by how angry white men get in response.

Scalzi basically throws rocks at a squirrel minding its own business and when the squirrel starts chittering at him, Scalzi says, "You see, I told you. Squirrels are always angry."

There is no word about how Scalzi's theory would work if he said such things to white men in person. But I suspect it would go something like, "You see, I told you. John Scalzi is always unconscious. Let's publish this in a scientific journal."

Anonymous Severen June 23, 2013 7:48 AM  

"but we had the temerity to call them "ladies" rather than "females""

Eh, I've seen feminists get upset over being called "females" (they have no problem going on and on about "male privilege" and the like, but I believe their claim is something to the effect of "Calling us 'female' dehumanizes us" or something ridiculous like that). I personally don't care what they want to be called. Even if I cared, they're going to find a way to get offended no matter what, anyway.

Anonymous The Great Martini June 23, 2013 8:32 AM  

I was going to mention that but someone beat me to it. "Female" used in this context will definitely be a red flag. I guess he didn't get the memo.

Anonymous Weak June 23, 2013 8:38 AM  

Between this and the ongoing Paula Dean farce, it seems like the hopping mad warren is shrieking more frantically and haphazardly than usual. What's the undercurrent driving their fervor?

Anonymous Sigyn June 23, 2013 8:41 AM  

The president of the SFWA, John Scalzi, recently posted yet another of his insipid racist poems to white privilege.

You know, sometimes I get the impression that Scalzi's got a crush on Michelle Obama, and he's trying very hard to impress her.

Anonymous Augustina June 23, 2013 9:04 AM  

Between this and the ongoing Paula Dean farce, it seems like the hopping mad warren is shrieking more frantically and haphazardly than usual. What's the undercurrent driving their fervor?

Because they've won, and yet everything is falling apart.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 23, 2013 9:08 AM  

Judith Tarr describes in the following manner:
especially for authors without large followings or very up-to-date, popular, trendy subject matter





one wonders if "trendy subject matter" is code for non-romance, actual science fiction and fantasy.

i don't believe i've ever read any Judith Tarr so i can't definitively say whether that applies to her or not...

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 9:15 AM  

i don't believe i've ever read any Judith Tarr so i can't definitively say whether that applies to her or not...

Judith Tarr has a few very good books that are now out-of-print as well as one that I found completely unreadable. She's a fantasy writer, not an SF one, but I think it is more likely that she equates "trendy subject matter" with urban fantasy and Hunger Games/Harry Potter than actual SF/F.

Because they've won, and yet everything is falling apart.

This isn't supposed to happen... this can't be happening... it must be their fault SOMEHOW! What is driving them insane is that the more things fall apart, the more it proves the falsehood of their equalitarian assumptions. I can't even imagine how humiliating it must be for them to see what is happening. Most of them are still in denial, but the clock is ticking on their ability to remain that way and still be sane.

Anonymous a. dude June 23, 2013 9:32 AM  

"What's the undercurrent driving their fervor?"

Hmmmm, might be NSA-IRS-Syria-AP-DearLeaderComingApart?


But let's just say "racism" to be on the safe side.

Blogger IM2L844 June 23, 2013 10:10 AM  

There has to be more than a few SFWA members reconsidering the wisdom of their reasoning for their choice in the recent election. The battle lines are becoming less and less equivocal by the day.

Anonymous Randy M June 23, 2013 10:12 AM  

"Corrections duly noted. Although one can only imagine the shrieks of outrage when Mr. Resnick's shockingly sexist paternalism becomes known to the pinkshirts. I think it goes without saying that neither Jim Hines nor John Scalzi would ever be so appallingly sexist as to attempt to silence a woman's voice in this oppressive and demeaning manner. They're much more inclined to hide behind, or wear, a woman's skirt than to protect her."

Laugh. It was a sort of patriarchal thing to do, wasn't it?

"Mr. Resnick, on the other hand, is sufficiently old school to wish to shield his daughter from the hatemongering pinkshirts, for which one can only commend him."

Well, assuming she would have taken his side.

Anonymous Randy M June 23, 2013 10:20 AM  

"Even if I cared, they're going to find a way to get offended no matter what, anyway."

Has anyone coined the term "strategically offended?" I'll be shocked if not, as it so aptly describes these groups.

Anonymous jack June 23, 2013 10:21 AM  

Mr. Resnick showing far far more class than his detractors. I know nothing of his work but may have to buy a book or three in support. He rates it. And Barry, too? Any recommendations guys?

Anonymous AXCrom June 23, 2013 10:24 AM  

VD,

Somewhat OT - the hardback of Summa Elvetica arrived and looks great, it's a welcome addition to ATOB on the bookshelf. Thanks for making it available.

Anonymous bob k. mando June 23, 2013 10:25 AM  

Randy M June 23, 2013 10:12 AM
Well, assuming she would have taken his side.




if she's not taking his side she's certainly not going to honor a request *from him* to stay out of the kerfluffle.

my guess would be that her position is more analogous to that of the good little life-long feminist mother ... who can't figure out why her son is having to deal with false rape allegations that he has no effectual means of defending himself against.

the 'severity of the charge' and whatnot.

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 10:26 AM  

There has to be more than a few SFWA members reconsidering the wisdom of their reasoning for their choice in the recent election.

I think one has to give Mr. Gould a chance to show what he is made of before reaching an opinion. After all, there is almost no chance he will prove to be as disastrous as Scalzi. Perhaps he is even smart enough to see what has happened and realize that maintaining the present course will take the organization right off the cliff.

Or perhaps he'll prove to be exactly the same sort of idiot that Scalzi is and double-down, supported by the cheers of the pinkshirts. Time will tell. As it stands, none of this is on him. It's all on McRapey.

Anonymous karsten June 23, 2013 10:33 AM  

This may be a naive comment (or perhaps an unoriginal one -- I haven't followed this saga closely) but would it be possible to take the same approach here that one should take to the BSA and create an alternative SFWA which is not beholden to the Cultural Marxists?

Mind you, that shouldn't prevent one from fighting the good fight at SFWA either. Both goals are not mutually exclusive.

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 10:37 AM  

would it be possible to take the same approach here that one should take to the BSA and create an alternative SFWA which is not beholden to the Cultural Marxists?

Certainly. Lou Antonelli has taken some steps in this regard. I don't happen to have either the time or the inclination at the moment. I'm more interested in establishing new lines of ebook distribution; I even attempted to work with SFWA on that. But they weren't much interested as they doubted it would prove of any import.

Blogger "1951" June 23, 2013 10:40 AM  

Mike Resnick's Second Contact is, in my opinion, one of the best SF novels.

Anonymous Obvious June 23, 2013 10:56 AM  

Gee, when you put it like that, Mike, of course this whole situation is silly.

Of course, that's not what they're actually upset about and it's highly disingenuous to put it in those terms. I gotta say this persecution complex that you guys set up for yourself is pretty damn amusing.

Anonymous Orville June 23, 2013 11:03 AM  

Screamers...reminds me of that old clip Limbaugh used to run of a bunch of shrill butches screaming "We're feminists and we're in your face", while some man was chuckling in the background.

Blogger IM2L844 June 23, 2013 11:24 AM  

I gotta say this persecution complex that you guys set up for yourself is pretty damn amusing.

You really shouldn't have situated your house of glass in a quarry.

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 11:35 AM  

Of course, that's not what they're actually upset about and it's highly disingenuous to put it in those terms.

That's exactly what they're upset about. Since you are not an SFWA member, like Mr. Resnick and myself, you are not privy to the Bulletin-related discussions in the SFWA forums.

Nor is it "highly disingenuous" to describe the situation in accurate terms. Didn't you learn anything at all from the last time you tried to jump in and opine in ignorance?

Anonymous bob k. mando June 23, 2013 11:40 AM  

*shrugs*

he's not going to 'learn' anything.

his only purpose here is to troll.

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 11:53 AM  

his only purpose here is to troll.

I wouldn't go that far. He frequently serves as an object lesson, so reliably, in fact, that I've been accused of inventing him.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben June 23, 2013 12:07 PM  

This is who we are dealing with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80

Anonymous bob k. mando June 23, 2013 12:16 PM  

*facepalm*

gotta love how the dyed red-hair spends the first half of the vid telling men to 'shut up' and then reads the bullet point off of her list saying that feminists "don't want men to shut up".

Anonymous bob k. mando June 23, 2013 12:26 PM  

VD June 23, 2013 11:53 AM

his only purpose here is to troll.

I wouldn't go that far. He frequently serves as an object lesson, so reliably, in fact, that I've been accused of inventing him.





yes.

and his refusal to learn is an integral part of his service as an 'object lesson'.

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 23, 2013 1:10 PM  

As for those wishing to start an alt-BSA now that Gramsci's legions have largely completed their long march through the formerly traditional institution, they are going to have to seriously devote some thought about methodology to detect and expel the pinkshirts. How the BSA was subverted in the course of two decades (even after winning a supreme council of ayatollahs decision affirming their freedom of association) should serve as a lesson in the tactics and strategy of the pinkshirts, who are proving themselves every day more fanatical about their religion of "equality" than the wildest goathumper in the sands of Sahara. Christianity - yes, even the "conservative" branches - are rapidly following the BSA into the vortex of tolerance.

Anonymous O.C. June 23, 2013 1:10 PM  

would it be possible to take the same approach here that one should take to the BSA and create an alternative SFWA which is not beholden to the Cultural Marxists?

For what purpose? SFWA was created in 1965 for the purpose of exterminating the rapacious "all rights in perpetuity" contracts that Street & Smith, and their successor, Conde' Nast, used. (A lot of the "best-loved" stories in the SF canon remained in print for decades not because readers are screaming for yet another reprint of Van Vogt's "Black Destroyer," but because Street & Smith bought all rights and could reprint those stories endlessly without ever paying the original author another dime.)

That was the reason why SFWA was founded. Once that battle was won, SFWA faced the same question faced by every successful organization built around a single issue: We've won!

Now what?

And for forty years since, SFWA has groped and floundered in search of a reason to continue to exist. Aside from providing an open bar in a private party at WorldCon, so that newbies and Grand Masters could get falling-down drunk together without fans getting in the way, the only useful thing SFWA has done for writers in the decades since has been to set up an Emergency Medical Fund to assist aging members with no or lousy medical insurance, and a Legal Assistance Fund to provide some meager help to members having legal troubles with publishers.

So the question remains: yes, it would be possible to create an alternative organization. But what would such an organization do?

Anonymous Jill June 23, 2013 2:08 PM  

I've heard of pink and yellow ribbons, red armbands and white hats, but what is all this about pink shirts? This is a new political style choice to me.

Blogger kudzu bob June 23, 2013 2:09 PM  

Has anyone coined the term "strategically offended?"

A Google search yields one hundred and fifty hits, with your instance being the seventh.

It’s an excellent phrase. Well done. I shall steal it early and often.

Blogger Markku June 23, 2013 2:10 PM  

Jill: Like the historical Brownshirts, only more totalitarian.

Anonymous throwaway June 23, 2013 2:52 PM  

Yet I'm still working toward my SFWA merit badge.

Soon I will be bare minimally qualified to spew vitriol on and gain admission to the magical place that is the SFWA message boards.

Anonymous DaveP. June 23, 2013 3:31 PM  

If it objects to being called a "Lady" then it isn't one, and doesn't deserve to be treated with gentlemanly behavior. If you want respect, act like you deserve it.

Anonymous Fail Burton June 23, 2013 4:19 PM  

Gould is another Scalzi. He interacts with and supports the worst racialists and feminists in SF.

Right now he's retweeting the eternally moronic Jim Hines' post about "civility." As usual, America and SF is a gulag/internment camp. The post hysterically uses words like "opression," "freedom," "abuse," and "safety." And there is a long quote from MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which they've been using a lot lately.

But if you look at the good they've done as opposed to the harm, it's not even a close call. They are freedom fighters, and this is a refugee camp in Bosnia for gays, women and non-whites. What morons.

"Paranoid" and "exaggerate" are the only words that fits this bunch.

http://www.jimchines.com/2013/06/two-thoughts-on-civility/

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 4:51 PM  

Right now he's retweeting the eternally moronic Jim Hines' post about "civility."

It's good to know there is no need to be civil to either of the cross-dressing idiots. Just let the record note that they were the ones who rejected it.

Anonymous Obvious June 23, 2013 5:03 PM  

That's exactly what they're upset about. Since you are not an SFWA member, like Mr. Resnick and myself, you are not privy to the Bulletin-related discussions in the SFWA forums.

Nor is it "highly disingenuous" to describe the situation in accurate terms. Didn't you learn anything at all from the last time you tried to jump in and opine in ignorance?


First, you don't actually know who I am. But go ahead and make your assumptions.

Second, the people who are angry about the situation haven't kept their anger in the SFWA forums. They've gone and written blog after blog about it. It doesn't take a SFWA member to read them and see what they are angry about.

Third, opining in ignorance seems to be the modus operandi in these parts.

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 5:12 PM  

First, you don't actually know who I am. But go ahead and make your assumptions.

Are you a member of SFWA?

Second, the people who are angry about the situation haven't kept their anger in the SFWA forums.

They have written about exactly what Mr. Resnick described.

Third, opining in ignorance seems to be the modus operandi in these parts.

Only by you. And you did not answer this question. You evaded it. Now please answer it directly.

Do you contend that if Congress passed a law stating that the U.S. Constitution is henceforth completely null-and-void, the President signed it, and the Supreme Court upheld that law, that law would therefore be considered legal and constitutional according to the U.S. Constitution?

The mechanisms are clearly not used. And "it doesn't really matter" is not an answer. Please answer this in a direct and unevasive manner if you wish to continue commenting here, as per the rules.

Anonymous Obvious June 23, 2013 5:29 PM  

Are you a member of SFWA?

If I was going to give you an answer on that, I would've. You already made your opinion on the subject known. I wouldn't want to try and directly contradict you. :)

They have written about exactly what Mr. Resnick described.

They've written on it depth in numerous places. You are free to actually read what they've written. You did, after all, post a list of their blog entries and tweets about it.

The mechanisms are clearly not used

You're moving the goalposts. You asked a hypothetical question about a law " stating that the U.S. Constitution is henceforth completely null-and-void", not about what mechanisms are being used right now. I contend that if Congress passed a law invalidating the Constitution they would do that through the mechanisms inherent in the Constitution. Your question is answered, directly and unevasively.

But the point you're trying to make is that Congress and SCOTUS are currently "invalidating" parts of the Constitution. Evolving the law by creating new legislation and interpreting existing legislation is the job of Congress and the SCOTUS and how things have worked since the time of our founding fathers.

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 6:32 PM  

You're now evading two questions, Obvious. I'm not asking who you are; anonymity is permitted here. I'm simply asking if you are a member of SFWA, which is entirely relevant to the matter here.

And you're also evading the other question. I'm not interested in your contentions about how the Congress would go about invalidating the Constitution, I'm asking about something that calls into question your previous reasoning.

Now answer both questions with either Yes or No answers, or go away. You've been here before, you knew you'd get to this point sooner or later. Make up your mind if you want to continue to play or not. You know perfectly well that you can't explain your way around these questions.

Anonymous Obvious June 23, 2013 6:51 PM  

I'm not evading the first question. I'm refusing to answer.

I've answered the second question twice now.

I contend that if Congress passed a law invalidating the Constitution they would do that through the mechanisms inherent in the Constitution AND THEREFORE would be legal and binding. It would be Constitutional but it WOULDN'T MATTER as the Constitution would at that point be null and void. Short answer: yes.

Anonymous VD June 23, 2013 7:23 PM  

I'm not evading the first question. I'm refusing to answer.

As you like. You can comment again when you answer it. Thank you for answering the second one.

Blogger Lou Antonelli June 23, 2013 8:57 PM  

"Q: Would it be possible to take the same approach here that one should take to the BSA and create an alternative SFWA which is not beholden to the Cultural Marxists?"

"A: Certainly. Lou Antonelli has taken some steps in this regard."

Anyone interested in learning more about the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling can visit our blog:

http://sasswritersgroup.blogspot.com/

Anonymous TheExpat June 23, 2013 9:03 PM  

While I applaud your efforts, I also find it more than a bit ironic that the acronym for an alternative SFWA supposedly not beholden to the Cultural Marxists (re: Feminists) is... SASS.

Blogger Lou Antonelli June 23, 2013 10:17 PM  

We had to work long and hard to come up with some useful acronym that didn't sound like SFWA some way, since science fiction fiction and fantasy will give you sff in any name.

Irony, and humor for that matter, require you have a brain, and these inbred elites don't have any, just an attitude and preferments.

My experience is that snobs don't like being talked back to, they don't like sass anyway.

I wrote a story once where a right-wing political party used the name Christian Constitutional Crusade Party. The leaders of the U.S. were powerless to stop it because when they were young they were brainwashed before being integrated into American society as sleepers, and they automatically obeyed the CCCP.

Blogger Lou Antonelli June 23, 2013 10:25 PM  

BTW, I doubt this surprises anyone, but as I was typing that last post, I got brief buzzing on my screen, which obviously sounded like some kind of signal transmission. I suppose the NSA has intelligent listening software to monitor dissidents, but they need to work harder, because if you can hear your traffic being transmitted they didn't get a good deal on the software.

Blogger Nate June 23, 2013 10:59 PM  

"I contend that if Congress passed a law invalidating the Constitution they would do that through the mechanisms inherent in the Constitution AND THEREFORE would be legal and binding. It would be Constitutional but it WOULDN'T MATTER as the Constitution would at that point be null and void. Short answer: yes."

And now we have... yet further evidence... that you're totally mind numbingly ignorant.

Anonymous N. K. Racist June 23, 2013 11:04 PM  

"#Jennifer Weltz JVNLA ‏@JVNLA 4h

"RT @harpercollins: Girls Write Now is looking for female authors--to serve as mentors in NYC. Info at: http://ow.ly/lKpoC #tellafriend
Retweeted by N. K. Jemisin

"#Jay-O Jay-O ‏@RadioHostJay_O 8h

Paula Deen Employees Come Forward With More Allegations Of Discrimination http://huff.to/1cap9LL via @blackvoices
Retweeted by N.K. Jemisin"

Two retweets right next to each other from the always moronic Twitter feed of N.K. Jemisin. I think the word "discrimination" comes and goes in her blunt mind like air pressure or something.

Blogger Lou Antonelli June 23, 2013 11:11 PM  

Interesting. Got more buzzing on my monitor, came back here and saw someone had just posted another comment. They're being uploaded as they are made.

Isn't technology neat, kiddies?

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box June 24, 2013 3:06 AM  

If you don't like something - a job, trade guild, relationship, etc - nobody other than you is forcing your continued presence there.
Pack your shit and move the fuck along!
Find a better scene & dump that shrike-fest.

Anonymous MadFoot June 24, 2013 4:48 AM  

I could poop in N.K's Hypocritical mouth and the stench that ranked from it would be a improvement.

Nothing worse then the Molly Coddled doing the Python "Help I'm being repressed" over and over.

If we give them a award for having it harder then everyone else will they shut up about it already.

And that is why we have this problem, The Liberal Scaliwags of this world will not let them just be. They are Judas and todays definition of Uncle Tom at the same time.

I hate all parties but Liberal Hypocrites have to be the worst. Plus they support a political system that cannot sustain itself.

A Total F'ing Burden!!!

Anonymous MadFoot June 24, 2013 4:52 AM  

And hats of to Mr. Resnick.

He is a Writers Writer and to have to put up with these spineless jellyfish trying to use him to make there weak ego feel better is really disgusting.

Hangings to good for em!

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts