Author: skzb

I play the drum.

Followup On Fourth Street

Had a long talk with a good and smart friend, who conveyed to me some of the confusion over my opening at Fourth Street. She says that it could be interpreted as regretting the “good old days” when women could be freely preyed on by pros at conventions.

It is difficult to explain why I chose to use “safe spaces” and “threatened” in that talk without a long explanation which is inappropriate to this post, though I’ll happily get into it in comments if anyone wishes. I had thought that when I referred to physically safe and “no unwanted harassment” (a stupid phrase, sorry; I mean, as opposed to the more usual wanted harassment? Sheesh, Steve) that would be sufficient to make clear that I proposed no such thing.

Evidently I was wrong. And, while one can always blame the reader for failing to understand, when enough readers get it wrong, one begins to side-eye the writer.

So let me state clearly and for the record I do not support that kind of atmosphere, I do not want that kind of convention, and I deeply apologize for any pain or fear that was caused by anyone thinking I did mean that.  My fault, not yours.

ETA: It’s worth pointing out that it isn’t just a matter of reading, but that this was a speech, not presented as text, and a speech that, moreover, I deliberately opened with a shocker.  This makes more reasonable the number of people who went past the “physically safe” and “no harassment” parts.  Again, my bad.

My opening remarks at Fourth Street Fantasy Convention

This last weekend Fourth Street Fantasy Convention took place.  At the beginning I made an opening statement that has generated discussion, dispute, and even some hard feelings. I have exactly no interest in perpetuating one of those idiotic feuds or convention brawls that plague the science fiction community like aphids on tomato plants, but as the discussion is continuing in various places, it seems appropriate to permit those discussing it to have the text at hand.   Though these conversations often, alas, degenerate into personal attacks, I am hopeful that the issues themselves will receive some discussion.  For those of us who love fantasy fiction, and want there to be better fantasy fiction, it should be obvious that, at least, the issues are important.

(The closing statement, which addresses the same issues from another, perhaps opposite perspective, was delivered by Scott Lynch and can be found here.)

There are two  points I want to make about my remarks:
1) I thoughtlessly permitted my statement to be interpreted as coming from the Fourth Street Board, rather than being my own opinion.  That was a mistake and I regret it, and I apologize to the board and membership for that confusion.
2) I stand by what I said.

 

Fourth Street Fantasy Convention is not a safe space. On the contrary, it is a very unsafe space. Of course, it ought to be safe in the sense of everyone feeling physically safe, and in the sense that there should be no unwanted harassment, and it should be free of personal attacks of any kind. But other than that, it is not safe.

Your beliefs about writing, and my beliefs about writing, and what is good, and how to make it good, should be sufficiently challenged to make us uncomfortable.

The interaction of art and politics is getting more and more in our faces. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point (although I think it’s good); it reflects changing social conditions, intensification of conflicts. Anyone who thinks art is independent of social conditions is as hopelessly muddled as someone who thinks there is a direct, simplistic 1:1 correspondence between them.

The result of this is that political understanding, unexamined assumptions, agendas, are very much present in the art we create and thus in the discussions of that art.

If no one feels unsafe, or threatened during these discussions, we’re doing them wrong. The same is true in discussing technique, because technique, content, form, attitude toward the creation and role of art, and understanding of society, are all interconnected, and in challenging one, we are liable to find ourselves challenging another. Am I interested in turning a discussion of writing craft into a political dispute? No. I’m here to talk about craft. But I recognize that there is no clean separation, and that the one can lead to the other, and I’ll not shy away from it when it does.

If our primary goal in such discussions is to make sure everyone feels safe, then we must above all avoid the very sorts of passionate dispute this convention was created for. At that point, the convention has lost so much value that I, for one, would rather spend the weekend writing. I come to Fourth Street to have my assumptions and opinions about fantasy writing challenged and threatened; I come here to feel unsafe. If you aren’t here in order to have your assumptions and opinions challenged, then one of us is at the wrong convention.

If no one feels unsafe, we’re wasting our time here.

President Obama’s Legacy in his Own Words Except Not

Many things are happening with people’s thinking as the Trump administration does its best to drag the world back to the dark ages. Large numbers are taking it as a wakeup call that the system is fundamentally broken. Others haven’t gotten that far yet, but are asking important questions. Still others are squeezing their eyes more tightly shut than ever and seem determined to continue the policies that got us here.  The political crisis within the Democratic Party between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters isn’t just an ideological difference, the depth and bitterness of the conflict reflects the hopelessness of reformism in the face of the world crisis of capitalism.

One feature of those determined not to let go of the Democratic Party, especially those who idealize Clinton, is the attempt to canonize President Obama, to paint a picture of him as some sort progressive hero.  I remember, though I didn’t share in it, the huge wave of hope that swept across broad masses of people at his election in 2008, followed by 7 1/2 years of increasing disappointment—I’m far from the only one who referred to his tenure as Bush 3 and 4.  This was followed, at the very end, by his rehabilitation among hardened Democrats as the nomination went to someone who clearly intended to continue his policies.  This is important to be aware of.   Most of us on the left found ourselves able to find more and more common ground with our liberal friends in disgust with Obama’s actions, until, as the election approached, these same individuals suddenly could find nothing but virtues in him, and if you didn’t agree you’d be told sardonically that he wasn’t “pure” enough for you.

Why does this matter?  Why am I going back to the previous presidency in discussing how to approach this one? Because, to put it in as simple terms as I can, we are never going to solve the problems that produced Trump while we idealize the 8 years that prepared the ground for him.

With this in mind, I’ve collected some quotes from his presidency.

“I did not want to open a war in five new countries, nor did I wish to incite civil war in Syria, I was forced to by the Republican controlled congress.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“I would have prosecuted the Wall Street criminals—at least one of them—if I hadn’t been prevented from doing so by Republican intransigence.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“Instructing Secretary Clinton to prevent the Haitians who worked for US corporations from achieving a modest wage increase was an action I was forced into by conservatives in Congress.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“It is true that my administration deported more people, especially more children, than any other in history, but that was forced on me by the Republicans.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“I feel terrible for the hundreds of thousands who were hurt by the two cuts I made to the food stamp program. It was a result of Republican majorities in the House and Senate.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“I recognize that in the most vital civil rights case of my administration, the Hobby Lobby case, I instructed Justice to not argue it on First Amendment grounds, the most powerful argument, and that this permitted an important victory for the religious right. If the Democratic Party had had control of Congress, I would have been able to make a different decision.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The Patriot Act was extended against my will.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The need to compromise with Republicans unfortunately required instituting regime change in Libya, and aiding the neo-fascist coup in Ukraine.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“Republican domination of the House and Senate prevented me from pushing for a climate policy in Paris that actually committed signatories to specific actions, rather than vague handwaving about intentions.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“Spying on US citizens was something I would have stopped if there had been Democratic control of Congress.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The drastically increased use of drones to kill non-combatants, including American citizens, without due process, was something I could not avoid because of the Republicans.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“I had hoped for a Democratic Congress in order to stop the racist and reactionary ‘war on drugs.'”
— Barack Obama
Never

“Because of the need to work with Republicans, this administration was forced to prosecute more whistle-blowers than any other in history, which I consider unfortunate.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“If it weren’t for Republican control of Congress, I would have had the Justice Department prosecute at least one murdering cop.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The drastic increase in income disparity is something I was prevented from fighting by Republicans.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“With a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate we could have passed a health care bill that wasn’t based on more money passing from the pockets of workers to the health insurance companies.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“The Republican majority in both Houses of Congress made it impossible to address the poisoned water in Flint, Michigan, or prevent the thousands who are now being evicted there for failing to pay the bill for the poison they’re required to buy.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“All of my efforts to prevent police militarization were forestalled by Congressional Republicans.”
— Barack Obama
Never

“This is an intramural scrimmage . . . we’re all on the same team.”
— Barack Obama
November 9, 2016

Endlessly Tweaking

My colleague Casey Blair conspired with the cat to force me to write this. The original can be found here.

 

Endlessly tweaking her stories assemble in scrivener
Awaiting her words
Flailing at phrases connected by commas that run
Wishing they were wise
Only to stick at the need to revise.

Pensively plotting she opts for an outline and opens
An empty notepad file
Clearly contriving the crux of the conflict she backs up
To chapter five
Or even the prologue

It is one story
It is too discordant
It’s in three fragments
It is for submission

Perspective produces professional prose that puzzles
The editor inside
Perfection’s a problem that promises painful proposals:
Which words to elide
While choking on the prologue

It is one story
It is too discordant
It’s in three fragments
It is for submission

A Modest Critique

A not uncommon flaw in many thinkers is what we might call, “fail to scale.”  In other words, a good idea emerges for solving a limited problem, and certain people immediately jump to the conclusion that this same solution can be applied more broadly, without taking into account the additional problems that arise from greater size and complexity.  One example of exactly this problem has come across my field of view recently.

In 1729, noted economics expert Jonathon Swift made a modest proposal to solve the Irish problem, to wit, the eating of Irish babies.  Though never fully implemented, no good criticism of this plan has ever been made, nor, in fact, could be.  The difficulty comes in because today more and more economists are suggesting we expand this policy to include, not just Irish babies, but all of the poor.

Since the time of Swift’s writing, however, the world has changed sufficiently to make this impossible. Consider that as of 2013, median household income worldwide was about 10,000 dollars. In the US, most households gross less than $40,000. Anyone can see this means that there is no shortage of poor people, and so, at first glance, exploiting this food source would seem to make a good deal of sense.

In reality, the cost to butcher, render, prepare the poor and bring them to market (not to mention FDA testing) requires semi-skilled workers, who are, today, for the most part, exactly the ones who are unemployed or under-employed (and, at least in the US, generally without healthcare, thus making them unreliable as a workforce). The result is that we find ourselves in the situation where the only way to actually exploit the poor as a food source would require them to perform all of the required labor. It ought to be obvious that, while it may be possible to convince them to butcher themselves, each step after that becomes increasingly impractical.

As much as I admire those who have followed in Mr. Swift’s footsteps, I’m afraid other solutions must be found.