--
Antonelli announces candidacy for SFWA Vice-President
Introduction:
Lou Antonelli, 55, of Mount Pleasant, Texas, is running for Vice-President of the SFWA. His short fiction has been published in Asimov’s Science Fiction, Jim Baen’s Universe, Andromeda Spaceways In-Flight Magazine, Greatest Uncommon Denominator (GUD), and the World SF Blog, among many others. He has been cited eleven times in the honorable mentions list in six different editions of “The Year’s Best Science Fiction” – St. Martin’s Press, Gardner Dozois, ed.) His first professional publication was in 2005 and he joined the SFWA in 2006; he has been an Active Member since Oct. 2011.
Personal Bio:
Lou Antonelli is a first-generation American whose parents were born overseas. He grew up in a lower middle-class Catholic family in Massachusetts. He attended Columbia University in New York, and moved to Texas in 1985. He is a professional journalist and has won awards for news, features, editorial and column writing. He is presently the managing editor of the Daily Tribune in Mount Pleasant, Texas. His wife, Patricia, is a Dallas native. They are members of Trinity Baptist Church in Mount Pleasant, where Patricia teaches Sunday School for third and fourth graders. Louis and Patricia have two adopted Canine-American children, Millie and Sugar Antonelli.
Genre:
A life-long s-f reader, Lou first began to write for publication in the fall of 2002; his first short story was published in the e-zine Revolution SF in 2003. His story “A Rocket for the Republic” was published in Asimov’s Science Fiction in 2005. By the end of 2011 he had 60 stories published, and two collections – “Fantastic Texas” (2009) and “Texas & Other Planets” (2010). His short stories have also been reprinted “The First Bewildering Stories Anthology” (2006) and “Zombiefied! An Anthology of All Things Zombie” (2011). His non-fiction has been published in the SFWA Bulletin and “Zombie Writing!” (2012.
Statement of candidacy:
“The one-word reason I am running is ‘diversity’. I have a background that I think will complement the other members of the board. I am older and pretty much travel in the traditional paths of the genre. I also have devoted almost all my work to short fiction. I think I represent a particular type of science fiction aficionado. I have no problem with the way the SFWA is being run; I just think I may have something different to offer in terms of perspective and background.
“I do have three particular ideas which I would like to propagate through my candidacy, by way of brainstorming:
“1. As a gesture towards supporting new authors and fostering inclusiveness, I would like to see an amendment to the criteria for a professional short story publication, going back to the three cents a word standard (which I believe was the pay rate over a decade ago) but in this case also setting a $250 minimum for a qualifying story. I think this will be a boost to both struggling speculative fiction venues as well as new writers. In my case, if this standard was still in place, I would have been able to upgrade my membership to Active status two years earlier than I did.
“2. I would suggest that in addition to the Associate and Active membership levels, the SFWA add another tier, to be called something such as “Professional” or “Master” (with a nod to the Masons) to delimit people who make their living as writers and have the greatest stake in the well-being of the genre both as literature and a business. I would recommend the standards for Pro membership be double of what it is for Active members (six pro short fiction sales or two novels) and additionally include an income standard, i.e. the member must make at least $5,000 in income from writing in a qualifying year (once achieved, Pro status would be permanent).
“I think that such a three-tiered structure would better correspond with the facts on the ground in categorizing authors (Associates = Newbies, Actives = Semi-Pros, and Pros are Pros). I would propose that only Pros be eligible to serve as SFWA officers, but Pros and Actives members be eligible to vote. I would set aside at-large seats on the board for the Active and Associate members.
“If implemented, such a system might make Life memberships unnecessary.
“These two proposals are meant as food for thought. As is common in public electoral campaign, my candidacy is an opportunity to promulgate ideas and fresh thinking. There is nothing to be lost by discussing these suggestions, and something may be gained.
“Finally, my third point is that, with San Antonio hosting the WorldCon next year, it might be of practical benefit to have another SFWA board member (in addition to the regional rep) from Texas, especially one with strong media ties.”
Conclusion:
“With the retirement of the incumbent vice president, I thought I’d take the opportunity to run for the open seat with a goal of engendering a little dialogue and diversity. As I stated before, I have no problem with what is currently being done – which is why, for example, I would not run for President.
I would like to offer my different ideas and perspectives and I feel if elected I will complement the other members of the board. I have something to offer and nothing to lose. I would be grateful for your vote.”
Lou Antonelli
solacesdaddy@yahoo.com
www.louantonelli.blogspot.com
Lou, I'm sorry to say I found your statement about adopting "Canine-American" children incredibly offensive. I, too, am a doglover, but I struggle for the words to tell you exactly how and why your flippant trivialization of the ethnic identity movement with this phrasing revolted me. I'm not sure I have the patience to explain what was wrong with saying what you did. I hope you do find someone who will do that work for you.
ReplyDeleteFor the moment, please just know that I've shared my distaste with others, and had my assessment of the problematic nature of what you say confirmed. Also, while I'm impressed that you have offered to run for the position of SFWA Vice President, I won't be voting for you. I hope that you'll come to understand why.
Huh? My wife and I were not able to have children. We adopted a pair of dogs as our own children. I have always treated them with respect. I ask them all the time if they are happy having human parents. My wife was adopted, human to human. I tell my children they were adopted canine to human. I love them and treat them with respect. I have no damn idea what your problem is. If I offended some esoteric aspect of political correctness, I don't care. You probably wouldn't like me anyway.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the "ethnic identity movement"? If this some way of saying your genes are more important than your citizenship, then it's bullshit. I suppose I'd be called an Italian-American. Big deal. I'm an American, a Christian, a husband and a father - to my two children whom I am honored to call Canine-Americans. I used the term to insure people understood they're dogs.
You obviously take yourself way too seriously.
Lou Antonelli
Lou - If you're campaigning on a platform of "diversity" and this is how you respond to the concerns of SFWAns, then thank you for helping me decide to vote for the other candidate.
ReplyDeleteNisi is an Active SFWA member of long standing. She's written a book called Writing the Other. There's an article reprinted on the website called, "Transracial Writing for the Sincere" which is useful reading.
ReplyDeleteYou bolster my argument that the SFWA needs to only allow real pros on the Board of Directors. She obviously knows more than I do.
DeleteI'm not being facetious.
DeleteI'm not running in a popularity contest, and I'm not going to get everyone's vote. I love my children and someone objecting to the way I characterize them strikes me as an attack on my family. I've used the phrase "Canine-American" many times in my bios with published stories and collections. This is the first time I've heard a complaint. Shawl already said in her first post she wouldn't vote for me and was already campaigning against me. Not like she asked for for the explanation first.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you check out my background, you realize that, in relation to most SFWA members, I do represent diversity.
Hi, Lou, I'm a new Active SFWA member, and I'm curious what you mean about your one word "diversity" statement. I'm not sure what you mean by that statement, and since it's your stated reason for running, I'd like clarification going into the election. Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteMy background is different than most SFWA members. I live in a small town in Texas and go to a Southern Baptist Church. I write s-f and fantasy as a sideline and I'm really just a normal middle class traditional guy. Whether I win or lose this SFWA election, I will be president of the Mount Pleasant, Texas. Optimist Club this fall. I think I bring something different in terms of attitude and outlook to the table.
DeleteHi Lou –
DeleteAt the risk of repeating what’s been asked, I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by a platform of diversity.
I don’t know the demographics of SFWA members, but I would bet a significant number live in small towns, don’t write full-time, attend some kind of worship service, and consider themselves middle class (and even normal). I’m not saying your outlook is invalid, but in what way do you consider it as promoting diversity?
I will come out and say that I find your use of the word “normal” problematic, in that it implies that you don’t consider other members “normal.” I know it’s very likely you didn’t mean it to come across that way, but it is there.
-Samantha Henderson
"I thought I’d take the opportunity to run for the open seat with a goal of engendering a little dialogue and diversity."
ReplyDeleteThat's an awesome goal, and you're well on the way to engendering the first, at least. :)
But I find your statement troubling in the same way I find a recent politician's comparison of giving people food stamps to feeding wild animals in a park troubling. You may well feel that animals are on the same level as humans, but that's not the general belief in our society, where to be an animal is to be lower on the Great Chain of Being. People reading in that light may not find the comparison of the way dogs are regarded with the way people who choose to identify themselves as (whatever)-American are perceived to be a comparison that's very on the mark and it does seem bizarre for you to say you're a diversity candidate and then belittle a reaction based on a belief in diversity.
I don't object to you characterizing your dogs in this way. I love my animals too. I object to you equating people in a political movement with animals, basically making their participation in the movement into a joke, which is what your statement seems to do. Perceptions differ, though. I can see where you'd find your own statement inoffensive, particularly when that was not the intent and it's a joke no one's said anything about before - but can you see where some folks might find it offensive? If not, I think that inability's a big weakness in a candidate, because this isn't an esoteric point, it's a pretty basic one.
Personally, the fact that you used the word "complement" in your statement correctly makes me a fan, and I think the three tiers of membership is an interesting idea. But I also think taking this issue seriously is going to work better for you in the long run than saying that anyone objecting to you is doing so because you're not popular.
For what it's worth.
Peace out.
Cat -
DeleteI agree with the late Andy Rooney that "The average dog is a better person than the average person" and I think you understand that my use of the term "Canine-American" is meant sweetly and most affectionately. Politics is certainly nothing I had in mind when using the term. I didn't bring the subject up, Nisi Shawl did. If I accidentally offended her, well, I'm sorry for that. I certainly didn't that have in mind. She might have asked me first what I meant.
I'm serious when I say I regard my dogs as my children. A couple of years ago I walked out into the street to pick up a piece of pipe that fell off a truck. I made a mistake and left a door open and my small Black Lab-mix ran into the street to play with her daddy. When I saw a truck was bearing down on us, I instinctively grabbed her and turned so the truck would hit me and not her. The truck skidded to a stop in time, and my girl didn't know how close we had been to disaster. I realized I was willing to die for her. That's what a parent does.
Why are my cheeks wet?
Okay, back to the political bullshit.
I didn't say I'm not popular, I just said Nisi Shawl doesn't like me, and in any political context, once someone declares against you, there isn't much to be said.
I think some of what I will say to come comments below are also pertinent to what you said, so I will make them there.
I didn't bring the subject up, Nisi Shawl did. If I accidentally offended her, well, I'm sorry for that. I certainly didn't that have in mind. She might have asked me first what I meant.
DeleteWell, no, you brought the subject up. And there's no "if" about the offense, so there's no need to make the apology conditional. If someone accidentally poked you in the eye with their umbrella, you would expect them to say "Oh, I had no idea you were standing there, or that I was swinging it so far, I'm sorry." And you would hope that person would at least consider their umbrella-wielding habits more carefully. "I'm sorry if I accidentally poked you in the eye" combined with furious swings of the umbrella in your direction (and an assertion that you caused the whole problem by complaining) would hardly be calculated to make things better.
You may have only intended a jocular use of the [something]-American usage, but more than Nisi found it jarring, not (I'm sure) because people don't believe you love your dogs like children. I'm sure--I am wholly serious--that they're the best, and the best-loved dogs in Texas. But there's a history to the []-American usage, and judging by your response to Nisi, you are in fact aware of that history. It seems to me you feel you should be able to ignore that if you want to? But some of us can't ignore it, and that's not because we take ourselves too seriously. It's because we're always dodging umbrellas.
As far as asking you what you meant, I assume you take yourself seriously as a writer, and as a journalist. I'm sure other fellow-SFWAns are prepared to do so as well, so it's not really surprising to me that we're going to assume that when you write something, you mean it.
Lou, you keep using that word, diversity, but I'm not sure that it means what you think it means.
ReplyDeleteNisi is offended because a remark that you think is humorous has struck her in a particularly sensitive place. Instead of (1) apologizing and (2) Googling "ethnic identity movement" so you'll know what you're apologizing for, you said that whatever she thinks, it's bullshit. After several people have more-or-less politely suggested you made a mistake, you said that it doesn't matter what Nisi thinks because she's not going to vote for you anyway.
If this is what you'd be like as a SFWA vice-president, you'd be a disaster. You are probably too new to the organization to understand just how tired most members are of exactly that kind of a disaster.
Can your candidacy recover? I don't know. But if I were you, I'd start by apologizing to Nisi.
Eileen -
DeleteYes, we all have our soft spots. I certainly didn't mean to offense anyone, including Nisi, by using the term. I did Google "ethnic identity movement" and I still don't know what it means. Right now I'm a little tired to start academic studies on a subject I've never heard about it before in my life. I'll apologize for being ignorant on the subject. And if using the term "Canine-American" needlessly offended Ms. Shawl, sure, I'm sorry for that. Never thunk of it before.
I agree that I'm too new to know about SFWA past history, and if you think I don't have the right temperament for the job - hey, that's a valid opinion!
My candidacy recovering? I always assumed Rachel Swirsky was a shoo-in, she's such a distinguished writer and you all know her. Both the current President and Vice President endorsed her. I'm running for the sake of preserving choice and open dialogue.
Gosh, you can so easily dismiss and put away academic studies. You do realize that for a PoC that it's their lived experience and they don't have the option of "putting it away"?
DeleteHi Lou,
Deleteit seems almost an afterthought for me to add this since an understanding of sorts has been achieved, but I wanted to share with you my particular take on why "canine-american" might be offensive to people. For starters, it trivializes the struggles of entire groups of people on whose backs this country was built and whose citizenship and equal treatment under the law has taken hundreds of years to secure--and actually is not fully secure yet. When your dogs have had all their land taken from them by force, and after they have been forced by whips and chains to grow the crops and clean the houses stretching across half the country, and after they have laid the tracks for all the railroad, and after they have been interred in camps because we are at war with canines in another country (just to illustrate a few, not nearly all the groups we're talking about) then maybe they will have earned the right to be called "canine-americans." But until then, anyone (human) belonging to an ethnic group whose history is tied up with creating the immeasurable wealth of our great nation at no particular gain for themselves, and often at considerable suffering and loss, and anyone who is sensitive to those struggles and takes them seriously, may be offended.
Make no mistake, I understand how much your dogs mean to you. They are VERY lucky to be your children.
I wish you well with your writing and your SFWA involvement.
Sincerely,
Caren
It's because of stuff like this that I left SFWA, which means that I'm a nonvoting observer of this particular kerfuffle. But I would like to say that as a representative of a fair number of ethnicities my own self (Irish, American Indian, German), a second-generation American not even born in this country, I find this kind of silly.
ReplyDeleteThirty years ago I objected loudly when a Hispanic wannabe editor tried to create a style manual for a national laboratory which included the sentence "There are no hyphenated Americans." Like bloody hell, I said, and he was shocked (and backed down, which he damn well should have, imho). But I do NOT find the term "canine-Americans" at all offensive. I find it funny and affectionate, and not at all patronizing. I think there's such a thing as having a skin a bit too thin and an attitude looking too hard to take offensive where none is intended, and it seems to me that to assume one owns "ethic identity" to the extent that one can dictate to the rest of the world exactly how it is used is arrogant, to say the least.
"But I do NOT find the term "canine-Americans" at all offensive. I find it funny and affectionate, and not at all patronizing."
DeleteHoly shit, you get it!
I think there's such a thing as having a skin a bit too thin and an attitude looking too hard to take offensive where none is intended...
Amen, bro!
Lou, what makes people's skins thin is repeated bashing. The fact that your skin is not sensitive in the same place is irrelevant.
DeleteA note on politeness: if you didn't mean to poke someone in a tender spot, you offer an apology. You don't keep suggesting that it doesn't hurt.
Ok, point taken. I'm sorry if I offended Nisi Shawl.
DeleteLou, I don't mean to go all Ms.Manners, but telling me you're sorry *if* (not *that*) you offended someone else, is not the same thing as telling that person you didn't mean to give offense, and apologizing directly to that person.
DeleteLou: I am certain that you intended no offense, but I think you may underestimate the diplomatic finesse and thickness of skin required by the job you're applying for. Nisi's comment was carefully worded and well-considered and very gentle compared to what you will face on an almost daily basis in a leadership position of SWFA. Consider that this position may not be a good fit for your skills and interests.
ReplyDeleteDaniel -
DeleteVery good observations. I have mentioned on the SFWA discussion board that if the group had some at-large posts, I would be better there, as a representative of some type.
badgermirlacca, one of the problems of living in a diverse society -- or any society, really -- is that it's pretty easy to kick someone else in a part of their psychic anatomy that is sensitive to them, but not sensitive to you.
ReplyDeleteThe polite reaction is the same as if you'd accidentally kicked them in their physical anatomy. When that happens, you say, "Oh, I'm sorry!" You don't say "Hey, it doesn't hurt me when I kick ME there." You don't say, "How come you're so damned sensitive?" You just apologize. It doesn't cost you anything, and it really might help them feel better faster.
And then you try not to kick them again.
Kind of invalidates an apology if you twist around and indirectly say you're not really sorry.
ReplyDeleteHi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a SFWA member but I do occasionally volunteer for SFWA.
Your stance and background aside, we understand that you meant no offense with canine-Americans.
As others have pointed out, it can be perceived as offensive to others.
What escalates the issue, however, is how you've been dismissive of the concerns of others. To Nisi, for example:
What is the "ethnic identity movement"? If this some way of saying your genes are more important than your citizenship, then it's bullshit.
You obviously take yourself way too seriously.
Ethnic identity might not be serious to you, but it is to other people. And many will find this paradoxical, considering how you've appropriated the term "diversity" for your platform.
You've made semi-apologies to the others who've made comments, but not to Nisi. If your response to Nisi's initial comment was the same was the first paragraph to your response to Eileen's comment, perhaps that could have been considered an appropriate response (I'll note, however, that "Right now I'm a little tired to start academic studies on a subject I've never heard about it before in my life" doesn't reveal qualities I'd like in a candidate, but at least there was an apology after), instead of insulting, belittling, and insinuating (popularity contest? real pros?) other points at your critics.
Honestly, you and badgermirlacca strike me as lacking empathy. I know you intend well, but you know what they say about good intentions and hell...
Good point, I may not be the most sensitive guy in the world. I always used to chuckle at the man's prayer of the Possum Lodge in "The Red Green Show":
Delete"I'm a man. But I can change, If I have to. I guess."
Lou, as I said, you did offend me. Thank you so much for your apology, which I accept unconditionally.
ReplyDeleteThanks! I may have actually learned something.
DeleteMaybe you CAN teach an old dog new tricks (oh, no, canine comparisons again!)
I'm JOKING!
And I will not use "Canine-Americans" in the future, I has no idea the way it could be taken.
You could use Furkids. (Which says more about your actual relationship to your dogs than Canine-American does.)
DeleteHi Lou,
ReplyDeleteFan here and hopefully future SFWA member, and I find your lack of knowledge and perspective about this issue appalling.
The USA has a long history of dehumanizing huge swaths of people in order to exploit their labour. Even today in the animal rights movement, there are organizations that use tactics that dehumanize actual people in the name of saving animals. These issues permeate everything, from media representation to political representation, right down to how individuals speak to each other.
Your affection to your companion animals does not in any way elevate them, on any institutional level, to the rank of human beings, many of whom still face obstacles to have any decent quality of life that you have no problem giving your own dogs. Many individuals suffer being thought of as animals, not quite human, on a systemic level, and yet here you are utterly unable to comprehend that perhaps this is a larger issue beyond what you think about your dogs. People are denied citizenship, denied humanity, and denied basic respect, based on their ethnicity, and somehow, Nisi is taking herself "way too seriously" because you don't understand why the ethnic identity movement exists? A movement which has spread to encompass other forms of identity, beyond ethnicity?
What, then, qualifies you to run on a platform that touts "diversity", when you clearly don't understand the concept? What qualifies you to tell a woman of colour, who will face dehumanization on a more regular basis than you, or your dogs, ever will, how she should approach the issue? How dare you, in fact, tell her, a woman who probably has faced more racism in the last month than you have your entire life, that's she's speaking of something esoteric?
As someone who may potentially become a permanent resident of North America, facing immigration issues, it's deeply insulting to see that dogs are granted immediate citizenship over humans. It is deeply enraging to see the hyphen of identity, used and insisted on by so many minority groups to claim just a little piece of America for themselves that is often denied them, trivialized in such a way for animals, because some random dude thinks it's cute and funny.
I strongly urge you, whether you win or not, to research what the term "diversity" means and can truly encompass, so that you can learn for yourself how you are participating in the trivializing and whitewashing of the term, your participation of which perpetuates the racism that permeates the system that people of colour are forced to survive.
Perhaps in that search you will also see how your apology isn't truly an apology. Nisi may have accepted it, but since you clearly don't understand why you're giving it, it doesn't mean much in the long run. I understand the impulse to give the apology; I've done it before. And that's why I can tell you, there is more to apologizing than saying, "if it means that much to you, here are the five letters that make up this word."
- Jaymee Goh
That is a wonderful explanation of exactly why a casual remark intended humorously could be deeply offensive. Thank you, Jaymee.
DeleteI thought "Canine-American" was cute, and when I first read it, I assumed it was a tongue-in-cheek riff on the ethnic identity movement terminology. It didn't offend me because I read it as a nod to the movement from someone who understood it--after all, you claimed you were running on a "diversity" platform.
ReplyDeleteThen you responded to Nisi's concern with vitriol and cursing, and then you kept responding with the same derisive, self-centered attitude all throughout this post, until you finally realized that people were passing this link around to showcase your unbelievable arrogance, and THEN you fake-apologized. If you were a story in a slush pile, I would reject you because the original concept (candidate for support and representation of one's peers) isn't served by the amateur prose (ignorance and impolite, ill-considered responses).
I don't think you're a bad person, and I know most of all that you didn't intend to come off the way you have. Think of it this way: the U.S.A. is mostly run by middle-aged apparently heterosexual Christian white men, and diversity is *everyone else.* You cannot claim this term is your platform until you at least begin to understand what it means--and you clearly don't.
My suggestions: you approach a change in your attitude as if it was a story for which you just received peer criticism. How can it hurt you (or your writing) to gain a greater knowledge of what your fellow writers are enduring as people in our society? So sit on the objections in this post for a week or so, let the sting wear off, and come back to it the way you come back to a story you're revising before you send it out. Research the terms involved, the movements that have been referenced, the type of debate tactics employed by you and the commentators, and edit your world-view accordingly. As a writer selling fiction to professional markets, you're familiar with this process in a way you may not be familiar with social justice. Use tools you know to make yourself a stronger person with better ties to the community you want to serve.
I have a pervasive belief that anyone who really loves animals is capable of empathizing with people as well. It takes humility, a passion for learning, imagination, and perseverance, just like being a writer.
Good luck. :)
I expect to see professionalism in a professional organization. By this, I mean I expect to see professionalism in preparation, presentation, attire, appearance, and the attitude of a candidate running for the second-highest office in the organization.
ReplyDelete3 cents a word is ridiculous. None of us can make a living on *5* cents. Please define "professional."
ReplyDeleteVery few writers make a full time middle class living from writing fiction. Besides all the things that the rest of the commenters have posted about, the idea of someone bringing up membership categories yet again (one of the most divisive issues in SFWA) without having any understanding of the history is interesting. I was once drafted to the membership committee and started making phone calls to find out what the history was and began not really supporting the position that the person who invited me onto the committee thought I'd support.
DeleteThe people who founded SFWA knew that without people who weren't making a living from writing, they'd have an organization that wouldn't be fiscally functional. To do what SFWA wants to do, setting up restricted membership categories within Active tends to be pointless. Trying to set them up by voting is even more pointless since people don't vote to downgrade their memberships.
SFWA is what it is: an organization for published SF writers, a handful of whom make middle class livings from writing. Another group makes working class or derelict livings from writing. Most write part time. The money figure is to separate out people who publishing only in marginal publications from people who publishing in magazines that have a readership larger than the people who want to get published or who have been published in them.
"Canine-American" is cute, easily understood and offensive to no one. Do we have the genre's latest artificial tempest in a teacup driven by overwrought, over-analyzed agendas? Looks like it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that everyone is equal, and should be treated as such. I disagree that we have to watch every word and kowtow to the PC groupthink. I think I may have mentioned this before, but it seems that the desire to force everyone to march in lockstep is still rampant.
Just wanted to pop in and say that I believe you had no intent to hurt anyone, and that I understand that sometimes it is impossible to please everyone. Stay strong.
You do realize that your comment directly contradicts itself, right?
DeleteIf it's not offensive to anyone, then you wouldn't be able to complain about the PC groupthink, which undoubtedly is made up of people who are offended by X.
Quite clearly "canine-American" is offensive to some people. I have no doubt that Lou didn't mean it to be offensive, but you expose your own extreme arrogance by suggesting that being offended by the term is an illegitimate issue because it is "made up." That you don't seem to understand how your own analysis of the situation only contributes to the devaluation of the variety of lived experiences says a lot more about you than it does about the "uppity" people with "overwrought, over-analyzed agendas" who have had something to say here. At least they seem to understand that diversity only works if you share those experiences, however divergent.
Yes, I certainly didn't mean for it to be offensive, and after a good night's sleep, I realize I shouldn't have snapped at Nisi the way I did. I think we accidentally pushed each others' buttons. But that happens sometime. Two wrongs don't make a right.
ReplyDeleteThis right here makes me like you a whole lot more. It takes an honest human being to admit to being wrong. We're all human. We make mistakes and that's just the way it is. Learning from mistakes is not a skill a lot of people have.
DeleteA+, Lou.
I'm both a Liberal and a Jew, and I'm stunned by the lack of humor shown in this case. As we saw in the Elizabeth Moon controversy (and it's hard not to see this as payback to Antonelli, who supported her case), SF is well on the way to being hijacked by a handful of humorless activists whose chief agenda appears to be to bludgeon the rest of us into conformity. How are these people any better than the extremists on the right? You have to wonder how long before we're forced to abandon the word 'women,' with it's nasty '-men' inclusion, for 'people of breasts'.
ReplyDeleteAntonelli's first response was right on the money, good-humored, and mild. These people need to get over themselves.
Have the guts to say that to their faces then, without hiding behind an anonymous post.
DeleteYou're right. The communities of LGBT (QUILTBAG!), female, Jewish, African America, African (Nigerian, South African, Ugandan, Egyptian, etc. etc. etc.), Indian, Native American, Latin American (Mexican, Brazilian, Chilean, Bolivian, etc. etc. etc. etc.), Southeast Asian (Chinese, North and South Korean, Vietnamese, Burmese, Malaysian, Japanese, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.), Australian, Kiwi, Maori, Hawaiian, European (French, Czech, Polish, English, German, etc. etc. etc. etc), American, Canadian, Russian, Arabic/Middle Eastern (Iranian, Iraqi, Afghani, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.), Israeli, and all intersections therein...all of them are trying to bludgeon you into being just like them.
DeleteI hope you now see the utter absurdity of your statement.
(My apologies to any group I might have missed in my various etc.s. Feel free to leave a comment including yourselves.)
Age.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised no one mentioned it but it seems to me that Lou represents something rather remarkable.
SFWA leadership, whether old or young, seems to be built upon people who got their start as published writers in SF at a fairly young age. Lou is a relatively new writer at a later stage in his life.
Age discrimination is a problem in certain venues, particularly in academia where it is often deemed acceptable to hire some who is Lou's age for an adjunct position (which he recently picked up I might add). Yet it is frequently made clear in a thousand ways great and small that the older you are, the less likely they are to hire for full time.
Perhaps we were too busy picking apart arguments over hyphenation, which I am not going to get involved in.
I will say this. Lou does serve as an example of someone who at a later stage in his life became a published, successful writer.
Perhaps SFWA might want to ponder on that.
Or perhaps not. As a non-SFWA participant and someone who never has any intention of joining the organization (arguments like this are but one of many reasons why) perhaps my opinions do not count.
Steven Francis Murphy
On the Outer Marches
Hi Steven,
DeleteAnn Leckie, running for secretary, made her first sale around age 40 if I don't mistake myself. (She's also at about the same career level as Lou although she has a few more pro sales.)
I'm the only candidate under 30.
Bud had been selling a while, but he's about 75. He was about 37 at the age of his first sale.
Lou may represent one aspect of age diversity, but there are other aspects involved. The idea that his diversity trumps all the other kinds is a bit strange to me.
No, Rick Novy. I'm not going to make myself a target for the ideological thugs who have nothing better to do but judge others and crucify good people who dare question or take harmless swipes at their sacred cows, or who are simply unaware of how extreme sensitivities have become. It's a real sad day for SFWA when it comes to this.
ReplyDeleteBecause what you're doing: not judgment at all. No. It cannot possibly be that your language is judgmental. Calling people "thugs" is not a judgment. Saying they "crucify" is not judgment. Using language like "harmless swipes" or "sacred cows" or "how extreme sensitivities have become" is not judgmental.
DeleteI like alternate realities. They're fun.
Foot-in-mouth syndrome. It's hard to shake.
As a caretaker for many Canine-Americans, Feline-Americans, etc, I must sadly express how deeply offended and hurt I am by the dismissive position which Ms. Shawl and others here have taken toward my charges (even if they say that some of their best friends are dogs).
ReplyDeleteBecause of my hurt, I expect that they will apologize and delete their comments without further discussion. They won't tell me my hurt is wrong or that I am wrong in any way: they will change their own hurtful opinions. They will not expect me to 'do the work' of defending my position, since my hurt is something that needs no defense. Nor will they criticize me for derailing or mellowing their harsh, since they so ponderously and massively harshed Lou's mellow.
Thank you all for your support.
I'd like to join the SFWA one day, but now I don't know if I'd be entering a tiger's arena of open war wounds. Are these the kinds of politics and sensitivities that come up regularly with members? We all need to respect wounds that different kinds of people get through our sometimes horrible species. But is this a normal thing at the SFWA, where someone makes a loving referral to their animal kids, who they adore, unknowingly blunders into sensitive unhealed areas, and is eviscerated for it? Maybe he didn't apologize in the way people think is appropriate for what they felt he did, and yeah, he was probably overly-defensive and lashed out, probably out of surprise. But that is probably because he doesn't have the same first-hand sensitivity as those who feel wounded do. People who have psychic wounds, whatever they are, have valid wounds, and should never have to apologize for them, but they also shouldn't expect an unwounded person to get their sensitivity to the degree that a term of love on their part is taken as an unforgivable lack of caring for what humans have done to one another. I've been expected in my life to apologize for my severe wounds, and I've gotten angry when people stumble into those parts of my psyche in a way that FEELS intentional, but is not. And I've been on the other side, too. We humans are a big ugly mess sometimes. (continued below due to length...)
ReplyDelete(...continued...)
ReplyDeleteIn Nisi's essay on transracial writing, she says how shocked she is by her friend's reluctance to write about sensitive areas, knowing she would probably get it wrong, and in a big way blunder into handling something incredibly sensitive in a non-sensitive way. And Nisi says that doing research would solve this fear. But that fear is omnipresent in all of us. We all can make blunders just in our daily lives. We know that we can't possibly see things from the internal perspective of a person who has been treated badly because of a group he or she is in, or because of how they've been personally abused. I worry about that in terms of sexual identity. Does my saying "he or she" accidentally harm people who identify as both, or neither? Did I just really hurt someone's feelings? I hope not, but it's possible because I identify as female, I personally am not really close friends with anyone who identifies as neither or both, so I feel really clueless in that arena. And yet I would like to be brave like Nisi says and still incorporate it in my writings, and do. I do research. But for heaven's sake, I am multiple ethnicities, I look mostly white, I am married to a black man who never uses the term African American and does not like that term, I have plenty of personal experience with ethnic issues and problems and sensitivities, and I have animal children and human nieces and nephews and godchildren, and it never occurred to me to be offended or hurt or shocked by the term "canine-american". Maybe it's because I can't have human children, either, and can't adopt them, so I instantly understood and empathized with what Lou meant. After it was explained why this term may hurt some people, I can understand that. Now I know. Now Lou knows. And maybe his lashing out in a surprised defense attack made those feelings worse. But he just loves his dogs! He wasn't even carelessly being insensitive from anything I've read. I personally do not use "critter-american" terms of any kind to describe my own children just because *I* hate any terms of nationality - but we're here on a planet that still has those boundaries, so I don't care if other people use them.
"In conclusion", I am simply saying that as much as I have wanted to join the SFWA on that day that I qualify, now I'm scared $*^!less that I will horribly offend someone whose wounds I would never ever harm on purpose or carelessly, but certainly could through a profound ignorance that even long research wouldn't reveal. And I'm also really surprised, because sci-fi writers daily deal with issues in their own writings that push cultural boundaries and foibles. Thanks for listening :)
Zantippy -
ReplyDeleteAt the time this fracas happened, I was running for V-P of the SFWA, but after I saw how people behaved I realized there was no future for me with the group. Although I've kept - and even renewed - my membership in the SFWA, I just use it as a resource. The outfit is run by a badly inbred clique of PC Nazis with the snobbishness of the Metropolitan Club and the politics of the Khmer Rouge. I stopped campaigning for the V-P of SFWA the first week of March and turned my attention towards organizing a writers group that would be collegial, congenial and PC-free. I didn't make a big deal of dropping my candidacy or else the clique would have reamed me all over again.
The incorporation papers of the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling (SASS) have been filed with the office of the Texas Secretary of State - both the secretary (me) and the treasurer live in Texas. The interim prez lives in California and the interim V-P in Utah. Once it's approved we will be open to accepting members and dues.
This group is intended to help and mentor aspiring, semi-pro and newbie writers, as well as casual writers such as myself. Although I qualify for active membership in the SFWA, I have a real job and a real life, and - sort of feeling like you - if being a full-time writer means being being like the opinion leaders in the SFWA, you can have it. The SFWA is for high-powered hateful egotistical hot shots. They only believe in themselves.
Yes, if you try to voice an opinion in the SFWA, the PC stormtroopers will come after you. Unless you like walking on eggshells around a bunch of blowhards, stay away. You'll probably like SASS better.