I found it probably the most interesting thing I've read about the SF / Fantasy genre niche world in years. But I'm so out of it far as field gossip goes that I didn't even know some of this was going on.
Hasn't crossed my radar, but I'm not surprised. Such champions of justice as described in the article are notoriously intolerant, even violently intolerant, of any views they don't personally condone.
Just don't ask them to identify themselves or their aims; they are peculiarly reticent when asked to do that.
I knew of some of that but it's gone a lot further than the last time I read anything about it--which wasn't that far ago,
As the article stated this intolerance in the name of tolerance has already hit other fields. Certain people are so over sensitive that it's amazing. And they have become a stereotype of the worse religious dogmatist.
What is worse is that a couple writers I respect and admire and follow on Google+ are on that side--Or they were at the beginning. I didn't read one hundred percent of the article but at about ninety percent those two or three were not mentioned. One is from here long time ago.
Another thing is that they do have a couple of real points, that probably should be discussed but they go so over board that it hinders that discussion in more than one way.
Posts: 4983 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Personality cult power squabbling is why I'm a nonbelonger. SFWA's squabbles began when Damon Knight founded the parent organization and continue unending to raise dissent about SFWA's writer advocacy -- political -- and award culture. Culture politics are static, in a state of unstable, buffered equilibrium state of being: Stasis. And static -- the white-noise hiss of a corrupted transmission signal.
The Hugo awards' squabbles began at inception, too, and also within the sponsoring organization: the World Science Fiction Society and its conference culture. Literary award culture, across culture and society overall, squabbles and uncompromising dissent and dirty smear campaign politicking are more common than mutual compromise in any and every social group, which is extremely rare, though squabbles are kept confidential as much as possible.
Most anyone who becomes civically involved imposes their insular views on others with little or no regard for others' likewise insular views. Many become active because they've become cognitively aware and because they've become involved, because a particular activity matters to them, because they've been negatively or positively influenced by an activity, and because they've come of an age where they feel socially responsible participation is important in insular areas that matter to them. Jealousy, pride, and vanity, other social vices as well, (envy, gluttony, greed, wrath, maybe lust indirectly), underlay a large portion of their true though veiled agendas.
With rare exceptions, they argue past each other -- tactically and strategically exactly like each other, label each other with identical negatively charged buzz words, like "fascist," and from the same accusation grounds they themselves argue and trespass against -- out of a need to self-promote their insular views and careers and narrowly construed values by any means to their ends.
The assertions of the article sensationally demote an opposition view for expressing considerations about social responsibility as a political platform and is also from a political platform that asserts social responsibility claims and considerations. The opposition faction had itself previously stooped to opposition demotion from political platforms. Hypocrites. How about a little civil compromise and cooperation toward a more civil society instead? When did the grudges and figurative blood feuds start? Who knows!? At inception.
The contentious, never-ending conversation is as old as chromosonal Adam and mitochrondial Eve after their departure from the proverbial Garden and as recent as tomorrow. The pendulum swings when one faction feels others are too far ahead of it and it is too far behind others. The pendulum swings.
The first casualty of war is truth; whether that war is on the battlefield or in the minds of men.
Regardless of your views, or whatever cows you all hold sacred, you and I are not above manipulating the truth to serve our own ends. The truth will set you free: if you can find it.
I think it is incumbent on all of us to find the truth of an argument before committing ourselves to one side or the other; and that is no easy task. But, for the most part, I think that all of us have the capacity to see through the hokum being masqueraded as truth is we apply ourselves.
If we all think for ourselves critically, then the peddlers of misinformation better beware.
I've many times read Damon Knight's signal short story "To Serve Man," Galaxy Press: November 1950, (PDF Perry Local Schools.org, Massillon, Ohio), Hugo 2001 retro award for 1951's "Best Short Story," from a literal approach. Figuratively interpreted as an extended metaphor and verbal irony, the narrative models the perils of masqueraded altruism and appeals to self-gratification as an ulterior predatory agenda.
One thing I can say about the Science Fiction Writers of America: do not mistake this social organization for a strong union. I was told this well before I eventually did become involved in union activity.
Posts: 8366 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Read what you want to read and write what you want to write, hoping that there are those out there who will want to read what you want to write.
Posts: 8107 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |