jimhines

The SFWA Bulletin is back after a roughly ten-month hiatus. I’m not interested in reruns of arguments from a year ago, but I wanted to take a look at what SFWA has put together for the relaunch of their professional magazine. (And of course, Jason Sanford beat me to the punch pretty much as soon as I started writing this blog post.)

One of the biggest changes is that the Bulletin will now be available in both print and electronic format. Members can log into the Forums and download the magazine here in .epub, .mobi, or .pdf format. I’m told the electronic edition will also be made available for sale to non-members, though I don’t believe that’s happened yet.

Given the events of last year, I suspect most everyone’s going to immediately check out the cover. The artwork is by Galen Dara. I like it a lot as an image. Dara does nice, evocative work. I’m not entirely sold on it as a cover for the Bulletin, though. The text layout doesn’t really pull together for me, and the overall cover … it just doesn’t scream “professional journal” to me.

That said, this is an interim issue. Moving forward, John Klima is taking over as editor of the Bulletin, and I suspect there will be more changes to come. As a transition/relaunch, I think the cover works well enough, and definitely sends the message that the organization is working to avoid the mistakes of the past.

The contents have a distinctly different feel, with an emphasis on what SFWA is and what the organization does. The very first piece is Susan Forest’s, “SFWA at its Core,” which talks about SFWA’s five core goals (inform, support, promote, defend, advocate), and the different ways it works to achieve those goals.

There are articles about the website, the SFWA Forum, the Ombudsman’s role, the SFWA Reception and other events, the online discussion boards, the YA/MG group, and more. If you wanted to put together an introductory packet for new and prospective members, you could pick up this issue and be halfway there.

And there are HONEY BADGERS! Comic relief honey badgers from Ursula Vernon and MCA Hogarth. I don’t know what Klima is planning for future issues, but please consider this a plea for more honey badger comics!

This is a good relaunch, and worth reading for anyone who wants to know why they should bother joining SFWA, or what the organization really does. Thank you Tansy Rayner Roberts, Jaym Gates, Neil Clarke, Steven Gould, and everyone else who worked to make this issue happen. I’m looking forward to seeing where the new editor takes it from here.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

The latest issue of the SFWA Bulletin went out last week while I was at BEA, including both my article about cover art and treating women as people, and the Resnick/Malzberg Dialogues, arguing against censorship and suppression. I’m not going to rehash the points I made in my own piece, but one of the many fascinating things I found in the Dialogues was the idea that the people complaining were somehow anonymous cowards sniping from the shadows.

I’ve rounded up some of the people talking about the problematic aspects of the last few issues of the Bulletin. I won’t talk about the pages and pages of discussion from the SFWA Discussion Forums, but there have been a significant number of complaints there–all of which have people’s names attached. And then you have posts and commentary like these:

• Foz Meadows: Old Men Yelling at Clouds. “I could make a drinking game about this article: take a shot every time the author deliberately highlights the femaleness of the women he mentions, the better to explain how these ladies never said I was sexist…”


• Peter Brett: Why I’m Renewing my SFWA Membership. “ I won’t get into the details of their remarks here, save to say that having read them for myself, I agree they were unprofessional, inappropriate, and not representative of the SF industry as a whole.”


• Amal El-Mohtar: Responses to Sexism in SFWA’s Bulletin. “VP, Regional Directors, hosts of volunteers in @sfwa, all working hard, are made invisible by the effort it took Resnick/Malzberg to wank.”


• Kameron Hurley: Dear SFWA Writers: Let’s Chat About Censorship and Bullying. “Nobody has to agree with you anymore. Nobody is afraid of you anymore. I know this may come as a massive shock to folks used to a position of power, insulated by groups of people who are happy to stroke their egos and soothe their souls.”


• E. Catherine Tobler: Dear SFWA. “In all the complaints that were voiced, there was never a call for censorship. There was never a call for suppression. There was a call for respect.”


• Jess Haines: SFWA, Sexism, Misogyny, and a Call For Change. “Mr. Resnick, Mr. Malzberg, I am not an anonymous voice. I am telling you now: what you wrote was not okay.”


• Katherine Kerr: “Since when is good taste censorship?“


• Jamie Wyman: An Open Letter to John Scalzi. “It’s not okay. And the reactions–these men saying that they are being bullied or censored because they are being called out as sexist bigots–is not okay.”


• Natalie Luhrs: Linkspam, 5/31/13 Edition. “NOPE, NO SEXISM HERE. Also, a lady totally told them it was okay to write this stuff and as everyone knows, one lady speaks for all ladies.”


• Chris Gerwel: The SFWA Bulletin, Censorship, Anonymity, and Representation. “I have a huge problem with Resnick/Malzberg’s attitude. I consider it regressive, out-dated, and condescending.”


• SL Huang: More on SFWA and the Bulletin. “The people you really should be angry with are Resnick, Malzberg, and whatever editor(s) let their article through. They’re the people who let down SFWA. They’re the people who made your public face into sexist douchebaggery.”


• Trisha Lynn: How Jean Rabe screwed the pooch for the SFWA Bulletin and how the SFWA can make things better going forward. “I’m going to instead talk about how the entire mess could have been avoided in the first place. And to do that, I have to throw Bulletin writer/editor Jean Rabe under a bus.”


• Samantha Henderson: Re: SFWA Bulletin #202. “I am not sure if I’m done with SFWA, which is more than its Bulletin and members with 1960s sensibilities.”


• Michael Capobianco: “As a further indication that the R/M dialog doesn’t represent #SFWA, Barry Malzberg isn’t even a member.”


• Silvia Moreno-Garcia: Oh, Bulletin. “In their latest Bulletin rant, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg insist, among other things, that they appeared on an issue with a Warrior Woman on the cover. They lie … They appeared in an issue with Sexy Cheesecake Lady. If they can’t tell the difference, maybe that explains a LOT.”


• Catherine Lundoff: “Ongoing egregious sexism in the Bulletin, which is @sfwa’s official membership magazine.”


• Dean Gilbert: “Finally found out what the SFWA controversy is. Wow. Will not be buying any Resnick or Maltzburg books again for sure.”


• Patrick Hume: “As far as Resnick and Malzberg go, well, I imagine it must be very frightening being dinosaurs. Misogynistic, irrelevant dinosaurs.”


• Alisa Krasnostein: “What I see is several issues that have caused offense, incl a ridiculous cover, and no stand from the SFWA in light of complaints.“


• Jenny Thurman: “Why, @sfwa, do you need a task force to determine if your own members should be given professional respect within your own publication?“


• Ross E. Lockhart: To SFWA or not to SFWA? That is the question. “Recently, when it comes to respecting female authors and editors, SFWA has chosen a counterproductive path, giving a platform in the official SFWA Bulletin to a handful of male authors who have decided to wear their sexism outrageously…”


• Ursula Vernon: SFWA — Housebreaking a Puppy or Abusive Relationship? “…let me just say that it’s sad when you finally get to interact with some of the Big Names of science fiction and they turn out to be old men yelling at clouds.”


• A. J. Fitzwater: “I don’t want to join a union that majority men in power think women have no place amongst them. So sad to have a dream destroyed.”


• Ann Kopchik: “I really have no words about the whole #sfwa thing. Except that I’m tired of needing a dick to be respected.”


• Rick Novy: “Those who don’t get the uproar over the SFWA bulletin article, read it replacing words meaning ‘female’ with words meaning ‘black.’


• “Jenn Reese: “SFWA is the most backwards-looking organization I belong to. We can write the future, but we can’t even live in the present.


• “Damien Walter: “The issues with the bulletin are not acceptable, but don’t change my sense of the SFWA as a whole as very hardworking and useful.


• “Kay Holt: “Not saying SFWA is bad. Just that we shouldn’t put up with embedded misogyny just because we otherwise benefit from an organization.


• “Kyle Weems: “Shame on you @sfwa. That’s hideous, backwards, and strangely atavistic for an org that writes about the future.”

ETA: My plugin isn't updating Dreamwidth correctly. Please see http://www.jimchines.com/2013/06/roundup-of-some-anonymous-protesters-sfwa-bulletin-links/ for the full, updated list.

After a great deal of thought, discussion with my family, and a good, hard look at my schedule and priorities, I just posted the following in the discussion forums of the Science Fiction/Fantasy Writers of America.

One way or another, I hope members will vote in the upcoming election. Because if there are no votes, I think the bylaws state that Lee and I have to fight some sort of a duel. Something about rubber chickens and key lime pie…

—

Jim C. Hines
Platform Statement for South/Central Regional Director

I joined SFWA as an associate member in 2001, and upgraded to active as soon as I made that third short fiction sale. SFWA wasn’t only a goal and a source of validation, but also a valuable resource. Even before that first qualifying sale, I followed Writer Beware religiously. I have no doubt that SFWA saved me from a number of mistakes in those early years. Later, I learned about the Emergency Medical Fund, got first-hand experience with the Grievance Committee, and watched SFWA promote an industry-wide change in “professional” short fiction rates.

I’ve served on SFWA’s exploratory copyright committee, assisted with the drafting of a potential harassment policy, and volunteered at the SFWA table at Worldcon, but after twelve years, I’d like to give more back to the organization by serving as South/Central Regional Director.

First and foremost, I believe a Regional Director must listen to and represent the membership. I’ve been very active with the SF/F community, particularly working writers, both those who are members of SFWA and those who qualify but, for a variety of reasons, have chosen not to join the organization. I believe my online platform will make me accessible to our members, and give me a platform to hear and respond to their concerns.

I would like to see SFWA continue to move forward. To me, the biggest priority is to complete the reincorporation process. I would also like to see SFWA reach out to those eligible writers who have turned away, believing—rightfully or wrongfully—that we have nothing to offer, or that we’re too narrow in the writers we welcome and celebrate in our ranks.

As an author, I’ve published more than 40 short stories, and my ninth novel from DAW will be out later this year. I was honored with a Hugo award last year for my online writing about the SF/F community. (And yes, I’m the guy who did those half-naked cover poses to try to promote discussions of sexism in the genre.)

In my day job as a manager working for the State of Michigan, I’ve received a crash course in managing priorities, responding to multiple demands on my time, and reviewing input from a variety of often contradictory sources. Perhaps most importantly, I’ve learned how to keep good ideas from stagnating, and to do the work to push those good ideas forward.

I have nothing but respect and gratitude for Lee Martindale and the work she’s done for SFWA. But I also think the membership is better served when there are multiple candidates, and I believe I have a lot to offer the organization.

I would appreciate your vote for South/Central Regional Director. But more importantly, I hope you’ll vote, period.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

My ballot for the 2012 SFWA Officer Election showed up this week. Some of the decisions are pretty straightforward. John Scalzi is running unopposed for President, and overall I’m fairly happy with the work he’s done for the organization. Bud Sparhawk is also running unopposed for Treasurer. He’s got experience and a reasonable platform I can support.

There are two candidates for Secretary: Michael Burstein and Ann Leckie. I haven’t yet made up my mind here.

And then there are the Vice-President candidates, Rachel Swirsky and Lou Antonelli.

The platforms of the various candidates are posted in the SFWA Forums (you have to be a member to log in and read them). Let me say up front that I appreciate anyone’s willingness to step up and volunteer for a tremendous amount of work, work that can be difficult, time-consuming, and often thankless.

With that said, I’d like to publicly support Rachel Swirsky for VP.

Both Swirsky and Antonelli bring impressive resumes. While I was leaning toward voting for Swirsky already, what solidified my decision tonight was an exchange in Antonelli’s blog where he had posted his platform. Author Nisi Shawl expressed being offended by his use of the phrase “Canine-Americans” to describe his dogs. Antonelli responded by calling her concerns esoteric, politically correct bullshit, and saying she takes herself way too seriously.

I’m not posting this with the intention of dropping the internet on Antonelli’s blog. But … well, I guess I take stuff way too seriously too.

To start with, I get really sick of white folks lecturing people of color on what they should and shouldn’t take offense to when it comes to issues of race and ethnicity. If you don’t get it, that’s one thing. I don’t believe there’s any shame in saying “I don’t understand.”

But this is a condescending, insulting, and flat-out shitty way to respond when someone calls you on something.

I get that it’s hard. I’ve been called out on stuff before too. Sometimes I’ve agreed, sometimes I haven’t understood, and sometimes I’ve thought about it and decided I didn’t agree. None of those responses require you to disrespect or insult the other person.

More to the point, whether you agree with someone or not, this is an utterly unacceptable way for a potential officer in an organization to respond to the concerns of a member.

ETA: a link to Shawl accepting Antonelli’s apology.

#

Follow-up: I’m angry right now, which is a dangerous time to blog. I’ve tried to lay out my concerns clearly, without getting into personal attacks or name-calling. If I’ve screwed that up, I reserve the right to come back and tack on an addendum, though I’ll leave the original post as is.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.