Author: skzb

I play the drum.

Anthem of the SFWA-Fascists

We’re the SFWA-fascists, all of us agree
On every single subject as long as it’s PC.
We follow every liberal fad.
But we aren’t ALPHA, which makes us sad.
We are the SFWA-fascists within the SF world.

We control all publications as you can plainly see.
We won’t let you speak if we think you disagree.
All SFWA officers are in cahoots,
Goosestepping in rainbow striped jackboots.
We are the SFWA-fascists within the SF world.

We get special treatment from each publisher in town,
And if you don’t agree with us, why, we will shut you down.
Sign our petition for your royalty checks;
Mystery and romance will be next.
The evil SFWA-fascists who run the SF world.

Mainstream publishing we will redesign;
To write we have to see your name on the dotted line.
Our liberal agenda will leave you awed.
We even ignore the voice of God.
Concieted SFWA-fascists who run the SF world.

We’ll shut down all the flirting, but that is just the start.
If you talk to anyone we’ll move you two apart.
No mercy no quarter and no truce
Till the human race can’t reproduce.
That’s how the SFWA-fascists will rule the SF world.

The SFWAs were created for the straight white males.
We must hound them to oblivion until publishing fails.
Gould and Swirsky head the lists
With all those other socialists.
We are the SFWA-fascists who are the SF world.

——————————————————————

Tune: Lily Marlane/D-Day Dodgers

Lyrics: Steven Brust

Thirty Years of This Shit

About thirty years ago, my first book, Jar-head, came out.  This is a good time to take a look back.  It would be an excellent time to reflect on the changes in the publishing industry if, in fact, I had ever paid attention to the publishing industry.

It is a privilege.  I have held, since 1986 when I quit my day job, that writing well enough to publish is a matter of hard work and dedication, and making a living at it is a matter of dumb luck.  I had a lot of dumb luck.

I’ve gotten lucky in my covers (I mean, holy shit have I gotten lucky in my covers).  Early on, a lucky break (that I still don’t entirely understand) gave me what is called a “lead spot” sooner than skill or sales ought to have provided it.  I’ve had amazing editors, who know what I’m trying to do, and want me to do it better, and know how to help.  I’ve had an absolutely amazing critique group that did the same.  Above all, I’ve gotten lucky that, when I tell the next story I wish someone else had told, it turns out that enough other people like it to keep a roof over my head, food in my mouth, and the lights on.

I’ve had the opportunity to learn from some of the best.  I’ve had the opportunity to teach (which, as anyone who has ever taught can tell you, is one of the best ways to learn).  And learning is a joy.  I’ve been a process geek for almost the whole thirty years; I’ve developed a fascination for what makes a story work, what makes it fail to work, and where there are boundaries that can be pushed.   Of all the emotional changes writing has put me through, “bored” has never been one, and I think that is in part because I happened (there’s the luck again) to have a deep fascination for process that constantly plays into my love of story.  Sometimes I think of a cool story idea and I go, “I must tell that.”  Sometimes I think of a cool way to tell a story and I go, “I must try that.”  Sometimes I think of a really cool line: “I must write that.”  Sometimes I think of a fascinating thematic question: “I must explore that.” Sometimes I think of a fascinating person: “I must follow him around.” All of these things bounce off each other, and keep me interested, and indeed, delighted.

Yes, writing has been good to me.  Professionally, ten years ago I promoted myself to senior writer, and five years ago I gave myself a corner office, so it’s all good.  Maybe in ten years I’ll give myself a gold watch.  Writing makes me proud and keeps me humble.  It makes me crazy and keeps me sane.   I make a living doing something I love.  It sometimes infuriates me that so few people have that opportunity.   I hope and believe that someday that will change.  In the meantime, for as long as I’m able, I’ll keep writing the next sentence.

 

 

Those Who are Silent on the Defense of Edward Snowden

Today is the Fourth of July, Independence Day.  This is a holiday that means a great deal to me.  In 1776, courageous and principled people took a stand against tyranny, pledging, as the Declaration said, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.  High-sounding words, but full of meaning.  And if that weren’t enough to make the day special, 150 years ago saw the forces of the Union strike a tremendous blow against slavery at Gettysburg and Vicksburg.   However uncomfortable it makes the contemporary cynic, these were people risking everything for the sake of principle.

The fight against oppression has come full circle; where once it was waged by the United States government, now that government has become the oppressors, and the fight for freedom must be waged against it.  The most recent defender of freedom is Edward Snowden, who exposed the anti-democratic actions of the United States, for which he is being slandered by the corporate controlled media, and pursued with a fury George III and Jefferson Davis couldn’t even have imagined.

Several writers I know stepped up and took a public stand against the persecution of Edward Snowden by sending in statements of support to the World Socialist Web Site; some others, perhaps not comfortable with the WSWS, have written statements of support in other places.

But I can’t help but notice some of the ones who haven’t. Without naming anyone in particular, some of those in the sf community who have been most vocal about gay rights, and feminism,  and anti-racism, and various forms of what is called social justice, have been strangely silent about this broad-based attack on democratic rights here in the US, and, indeed, internationally.  Why is this?

Might it be that they want to stay with “safe” issues, in the sense that anyone you make angry with it can be written off as not worth the trouble?

Might it be that these people are only interested in issues that–whether they are consciously aware of it or not–stand to benefit only those in upper 15% of income levels?

Might it be that they know, or at least sense, that this is a problem that cannot be solved within the confines of capitalism, or, at least, that it challenges society at a deep, fundamental level that what is called social justice only pretends to?

To me, it is tremendously revealing about the nature of these politics that their most fervent advocates are failing to take a clear stand in defense of someone who dared to take an action that benefits the masses of the people against the most powerful enemies of freedom.  Instead, they remain secure in concentrating on issues that fall comfortably in line with those in the middle-class mileu in which they (and, to be sure, I) live and work. They remain secure in concentrating on issues in which they can be comfortably self-righteous without threat to their careers.  They remain secure in concentrating on issues that are comfortably acceptable to those in power.

While Edward Snowden is hounded from country to country, and the full force of the United States government comes down him because he dared to tell us all things we need and deserve to know,  they remain secure and comfortable.

It is revealing; it isn’t pretty.

 

 

 

Defend Edward Snowden

My statement on Edward Snowden is as follows:

Occasionally you run into a situation that just isn’t that complicated.

To support the hounding of Edward Snowden is to support government by secrecy, to support the attacks on the basic rights and freedoms that every human being deserves.

To attempt to support him by an appeal to Democrats or Republicans is to ask the very forces who are spying on private communications in the US and internationally to defend us against–themselves!

Sometimes there is a duty to speak out, and this is one of those times.  I support Edward Snowden.  I salute his courage and integrity.  I believe it is either knavery or foolishness to believe that he can be defended except by organized action of the masses of people.

And he deserves to be defended.

Steven Brust

I’ve been asked by David Walsh, arts editor of the World Socialist Web Site, to make a brief statement in support of Edward Snowden for publication on that site.  I’ve reproduced my statement above.   I am now asking any writers, editors, artists, and academics reading this to do the same. If you want to join me in this, send your statement to walsh at wsws dot org.

A Fun Read, Terrible History: Roger MacDonald’s The Man In The Iron Mask

Just finished The Man in the Iron Mask by Roger MacDonald, which purports to solve the mystery of that enigmatic prisoner of Louis XIV.  If you’re as much of a Dumas nut as I am, it’s a blast.  What makes it fun is that d’Artagnan, M. de Treville, and even Cyrano storm across its pages along with mentions of Athos, Porthos, and Aramis.  Much of what he suggests is even plausible, which adds to the fun.  As an actual historian, the man is an utter putz–his conclusion about who the Mask actually was is based on approximately zero evidence and fairly bad speculation–for example, he never answers the question, “Well, then why didn’t the king simply have him killed?” which is an appropriate question if MacDonald’s solution is accurate.  Of course, he doesn’t cite sources except in the most cursory manner.   And he does that thing bad historians do when looking into a mystery: constantly going, “Here is the TRVTH!” rather than, “Here is why I have come to this conclusion.”  It added to the fun for me that, at his worst, he sounds a little like Paarfi–not in the way he writes, but in his insistence that, “No, really, this is what happened, honest.”

Toward the end, he discusses the French Revolution, where he proves his complete lack of knowledge (the French revolution, it seems, occurred because of the royal family’s sexual habits, and the storming of the Bastille happened because they were too slow in getting information out.  Uh huh).  But still, there are delightful moments.  “…Germain de Saint-Foix, whose shortcomings as a dramatist were rarely exposed because of his reputation as a duellist…” and I do quite agree with his conclusion that even if the story of Voltaire’s deathbed statement (when asked to renounce the devil, “Is this a time to make enemies?”) is apocryphal, he’d have said it if he’d thought of it.

So, anyway, it’s a fun ride, worthless history.