?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Every now and then I see the debate on minority representation in the speculative fiction scene, and inevitably, I see a white male editor say, "But we simply don't hear from women or people who aren't white," as if they've never heard of sending an email to one such author and asking for work.

Which, if you are aiming to have a stronger representation in your magazine or anthology, is what you should do, really. A good editor, by the nature of his or her job, has a wide appreciation of literature and demonstrates this in the assemblage of book, aiming to show a variety and range in the work that they select. It is part of making a good book (or magazine). It is surprising, then, that more people don't simply look to people who have different cultural backgrounds, if only for the different voices and opinions that will emerge. That's not simply limited to race, either, but gender and age, as well. A broad understanding of the authors that are out there writing will reward any editor, and keep his or her audience interested, simply because of the freshness that is there.

Anyhow.

Back to work.

Comments

( 6 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
benpayne
Mar. 10th, 2011 09:33 am (UTC)
Other than women, discussion on minority representation doesn't seem to get much traction locally.

Although I guess one reason is that often you don't know what cultural group an author is from. Gender is easier to guess 80% of the time.

Even so, there does not seem much discussion on race or sexuality, as opposed to gender, in local publishing.
benpeek
Mar. 10th, 2011 09:55 am (UTC)
no, there isn't, and locally, it is perhaps a more important conversation to be having, i think. but that's given in the national conversation of minority representation.
shadowsandice
Mar. 10th, 2011 11:17 am (UTC)
What, actually, do something?



Pfft.
ataxi
Mar. 10th, 2011 02:52 pm (UTC)
In your opinion, to what extent does the correlation of gender to the production of works satisfying particular aesthetic preferences or genre conventions modulate the ethical correctness of selecting works based on the expression of that preference, or on their adherence to those conventions?

In some sub-genres there's a vast preponderance of (for example) either male or female writers, and the readership and writership within the communities around these sub-genres often seems to be a strongly gendered ghetto. Two examples: paranormal romance, traditional sword and sorcery. Is that something that it's important to challenge? Why?

Could it be the case that the varying tendency of fiction (and particularly sf) to challenge or console its readers is an important - possibly the most important - axis of aesthetic distinction, and that therefore dogmatic insistence on particular levels of challenge or consolation is itself often a fairly tedious form of harassment across the boundaries of aesthetic micro-communities?

Could it be reasonable to tacitly accept that a new collection, or a new venue for the reproduction of written work is likely to dramatically favour one demographic and even appreciate the related uniformity of the presumed reference points of the works themselves, and the distinction that brings the collection itself in relation to those that are more eclectic?

Can such a micro-readership's consensus aesthetic with respect to literary works, that need not be explicitly actualised in any questionable wider social expression justifiably be used as a basis for ethical judgement? Would the efforts expended exerting this ethical judgement for the perceived social dividend actually do more good if expended in some other venue, in some other way?
benpeek
Mar. 11th, 2011 01:12 am (UTC)
i read this question at two am in the morning. i'll have you know, my first thought was, this can wait until the morning ;)

anyhow:

In your opinion, to what extent does the correlation of gender to the production of works satisfying particular aesthetic preferences or genre conventions modulate the ethical correctness of selecting works based on the expression of that preference, or on their adherence to those conventions?

If I understand that question correctly, what you're asking is do I think that work is being picked because it is a good piece, or because it is a genre piece written by a woman or man, and how often is that nudged in favour of genre over the actual work?

Personally, I reckon it's probably not that often. There are editors and publishers with agendas, be they positive or negative, and I would not say that it doesn't happen. But given the amount of writers that there are, and the sheer diversity to chose from in a publishing schedule, or book of short fiction, I would probably say that for the most part the ethical side does not influence choices hugely.

That's for good and bad, mind you. Some people will say it does need to be more, others less, and I can see both sides of it.

In some sub-genres there's a vast preponderance of (for example) either male or female writers, and the readership and writership within the communities around these sub-genres often seems to be a strongly gendered ghetto. Two examples: paranormal romance, traditional sword and sorcery. Is that something that it's important to challenge? Why?

Same reason it is important to challenge such ghettos in every walk of life, really: so that people are free to do what they wish without a glass ceiling. While it may be strongly thought that paranormal romance is another word for chick lit, and sword and sorcery is boys stuff, they are simply genre forms, and not born as either a male or female domain, and people from both genders do enjoy reading it, and having writers of both genders helps break down the walls and barriers and cliches that exist in each genre.

In short, I think it creates better fiction. Diversity always does, in my opinion.

Could it be the case that the varying tendency of fiction (and particularly sf) to challenge or console its readers is an important - possibly the most important - axis of aesthetic distinction, and that therefore dogmatic insistence on particular levels of challenge or consolation is itself often a fairly tedious form of harassment across the boundaries of aesthetic micro-communities?

Yeah, it isn't without its moments. The recent Bitch drama in which Margo Lanagan's TENDER MORSELS was featured was a border line harassment of the site, I thought. It bought it upon itself by not reading the book in question, of course, and for then deciding to censor it rather than letting young women think for themselves, so they got what they deserved, in the grand scheme of things.

But, there was something that bordered on bullying in the way that hordes of young adult authors swept down on the site to correct them for their error. Authors demanding to have their books pulled off the list, authors telling Bitch they were wrong, and the such--the impariality of the authors was never questioned, nor did anyone seem to suggest that authors should not bad together, ride into an electronic town, and beat up people because they did something they didn't agree with (no matter if they deserved it).

So, it exists, yeah, that harrassment. Often, what is done for a good cause can be done in a less than admirable way, but it's alwasy the risk when people are passionate about an issue, such as with the above mentioned example. It also ignores the fact that, for most readers, these events are pretty much uninteresting, and what they care about is the work at the end--which, really, is what the authors care about, and if they were not arguing, were not constantly pushing for change, would probably result in a scene full of work created by people who didn't give a shit.

And that would result in bad work.


benpeek
Mar. 11th, 2011 01:13 am (UTC)
Could it be reasonable to tacitly accept that a new collection, or a new venue for the reproduction of written work is likely to dramatically favour one demographic and even appreciate the related uniformity of the presumed reference points of the works themselves, and the distinction that brings the collection itself in relation to those that are more eclectic?

Sure.

But, in the case of gender, it is worth remembering that this favourtism has long existed, and has long favoured male writers. They call it the Old Boys Club for a reason, after all, and after such long a time, new venues that pop up with the same bias get unacceptable, especially given the diversity of the authors out there.

Can such a micro-readership's consensus aesthetic with respect to literary works, that need not be explicitly actualised in any questionable wider social expression justifiably be used as a basis for ethical judgement? Would the efforts expended exerting this ethical judgement for the perceived social dividend actually do more good if expended in some other venue, in some other way?

So, in other words, you shouldn't bother if it doesn't have a broader justification?

Nah.

I mean, you want things to change, they have to begin in your own home, so to say. Chaning small pockets of the world is, eventually, how you change larger parts of it--but mostly, you have to fight where you stand first, before you take it out onto the street.

this is totally a blog post...



( 6 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )