It seems that Red Sonja-esque women in chain mail bikinis have no place in modern fantasy, at least as far as a certain segment of SFWA is concerned. SFWA purports to speak for a diversity of writers, which means sooner or later one subset will be offended by something. The question is to what extent does one person's perceived right to be free from offending material infringe on someone else's right of free speech or expression.
The other, and bigger, stink is over the Resnick-Malzberg Dialogues. This is a feature that has been running in the bulletin for years. Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg discuss various aspects of science fiction culture and history. Having lived through so much of the field's history and having made some of it themselves, it's always been a favorite feature of mine. (In case you're wondering, the Bulletin isn't restricted to members; anyone can buy a subscription. I've never subscribed, but I used to pick it up when it was available on the newsstand.)
The controversy started out with a two part discussion about female writers and editors in the past. Only they used a horribly offensive term...."lady". And commented on how beautiful at least one woman editor was. I've not read this part of the Dialogues, so I can only go by what I've seen online in response to it. I don't know how patronizing the use of the word "lady" was, so I'm not going to comment on it, at least not yet. If anyone would would be willing to send me either a hard copy or a scan of these two Dialogues, I would be quite appreciative. Resnick and Malzberg published a rebuttal (in this very issue, IIRC). They didn't apologize; they defended themselves against what they viewed as censorship. I have read their response. It's available here if you scroll down, along with links to many posts in which the author is offended at their rebuttal.
The response set off an even greater uproar, with many people using the word "assholes". A lot. Yes, you read that correctly. A number of people are calling Resnick and Malzberg, two of the most acclaimed writers and editors in the field, assholes. Among other things. Much of what I've read (which isn't everything) seems to consist of people offended that Resnick and Malzberg aren't apologizing but standing their ground. One member has resigned over it. Outgoing SFWA President John Scalzi has issued an apology. I'm still trying to figure out just how much of a tempest in a tea pot this is, not having read the original articles. If I can, I'll comment on it. I might anyway if I can't get copies of the original Dialogues, but I'm going to try to go to the original sources.
Until then, I'm curious about the cover, which I view as a separate (although related) controversy to Resnick and Malzberg's comments. This blog has a different demographic than SFWA. I think that's a fair statement. What do you think? Is there anything wrong with the cover? Should it not have been printed on the Bulletin?
*sigh*
ReplyDeleteOK, I've been a straight, hot-blooded male all my life, so it takes quite a turn of angle for me to understand why there can be so much stress over an imagine like this. I am working on it, really I am. I have feminist friends and women friends and a daughter, so I understand some of the attitude, but not the vitriol.
Sex object pose? Perhaps. Barely clothed - true. But, she is conquering here, not being dominated.
I am VERY curious to read Gail Simone's take on Red Sonja coming in July, as it seems the chainmail bikini will stay even as a much lauded and respected female comic writer takes the storytelling helm.
Maybe the SWFA just has enough sci-fi and epic fantasy writers that being associated with an 'old school' sword-&-sorcery image makes them uncomfortable.
I can understand, and to a point agree with, people feeling the image is demeaning or offensive. The extent to which the picture is offensive or demeaning is going to depend on what the individual viewer brings to the viewing. But I'm with you. The vitriol is way out of hand. There seem to be a lot a name calling and personal attacks going on that aren't productive or positive.
DeleteThis post links to the full text of the Dialogues at the bottom: http://radishreviews.com/2013/05/31/linkspam-53113-edition/
ReplyDeleteThank you for the link, but unless I'm missing something, that's just the rebuttal which I linked to above, not the original posts that started the whole ball rolling.
DeleteLady! Wow, didn't know that was insulting, although I know some get upset with Girl.
ReplyDeleteGood thing most men don't use Broad or Dame anymore. No telling what kind of reaction there'd be.
DeleteSpeaking as an old codger, I think most people who get incensed at either of the matters in question have 'waaaaay too much time on their hands.
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteI get the blowback and complaints. On the other hand, that cover's no more/less prurient than any one with a loincloth clad male barbarian and Lord knows there's plenty of them. On the other hand it's an interesting bit of insight into the changing demographics of sci-fi and fantasy's readership from a male dominated one to a more sex-balanced one. I doubt a similar cover even twenty years ago would have evoked the same level of anger.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the complaints about the cover. But I'm not sure the demographics of the readership are changing so much as the demographics of active SFWA members has changed.
DeleteI did see one comment (I don't recall where) that said bare chested barbarians (Conan was specifically invoked) are about male power fantasies while scantily clad females are about male objectification of women and the two shouldn't be compared. I'm still trying to figure out the rationale behind that one.
That's a interesting idea re: changing active membership. I suspect that's it's a good measure of both. There's clearly a change going on in two genres that for decades were dominated by creators and readers who were mostly male and more often libertarian or conservative and is now much more mixed, both by sex and politically.
DeleteAs to the power fantasy-objectification debate, I'd get it more if we're talking about something like the cover of "Conan the Adventurer". But we're not. Instead, she's the victor, not some submissive slave girl. I don't know, maybe I'm too old and too male.
I think Ty Johnston's comments (below) from an editor's perspective are interesting. Again, I don't think twenty years ago there would have been a worry that the Bulletin's cover would offend anyone.
If you look at the field, it's changed a great deal in just the last few years. Most of the "old guard" aren't on the awards ballots anymore even though many of them are still actively writing. I've seen the accusation that this is because of groups of writers who have organized voting blocs to promote the type of fiction they like. I don't know if that's true or not. I've not really looked into the issue. Now that authors can publish their own works, I suspect we're going to see a number of smaller communities form. The end result could very well be that the major awards and writer's organizations (across all genres) will be less meaningful over time.
DeleteI like the cover, but I am part of the Adventures Fantastic crew not the SFWA.
ReplyDeleteI am impressed that they would stand their ground (as they should)and it only makes me respect them more. I have to admit I have not really read much of their work, but I want to more so now - whereas the backpedaling attitude would only drive me away as a reader. Stand by your statements!
I also like the cover and wouldn't mind having a framed copy of it on my wall. However, the woman whose opinion matters most to me would object, and since I have to sleep sometime...
DeleteI do admire them for standing their ground. I've not read much of Malzberg's fiction, but I like his essays, which have won awards. He's currently writing a column in Resnick's new Magazine Galaxy's Edge, available for free: http://www.galaxysedge.com/
Yeah, I've not read the original article either, though I did read the rebuttal and didn't find anything there overly offensive, though it was somewhat snarky.
ReplyDeleteThe cover does not offend me. However, as a former (newspaper) editor, it's probably not an image I would have used simply because I realize it has the potential to offend others. Whether one wants to consider that being a good editor or one wants to consider it being a weak editor, is personal opinion. I do know, however, that editors involved in a "stink" are often looking for a new job, or even a new career altogether.
Personally, I feel the heated "debate" over the SFWA issue has been blown out of proportion. Were some offensive things said? My guess would be, there were. But answering with further offensive things does not make one right nor prove a point, and there has been more than a share of this. There have also been numerous responses that were much more down to earth and realistic, but even they have tended to draw a crowd that seems not unlike a mob screaming for blood.
Ty, thanks for providing an editor's perspective. I can see how some people would be offended or think the cover inappropriate. Of course these days it seems that pretty much anything can be a source of offense.
DeleteI didn't see anything offensive in the rebuttal, either. But I haven't read the original pieces that set everything off. My understanding is that Resnick and Malzberg caught quite a bit of flak in the SFWA forums, which are restricted to members only. Assuming that was the case, I can understand their snark.
You're correct in that there have been some well reasoned responses. You're also correct in the mob mentality of many people who've commented. That's unfortunate because this type of response shuts down any intelligent discourse. And when that happens, we're all poorer for it.
I wouldn't call this offensive, but I would say that in 2013 it's in pretty poor taste. I love the old Frazetta images, and stuff like that . . . but they are part of a period of time that is behind us, and rightfully so, I think. I think fantasy imagery, even of a sword & sorcery variety, should be expected to evolve a bit. I mean, I like this picture, but I don't think it belongs on the cover of a publication like The Bulletin.
ReplyDeleteChris, I think you've brought up what has been part of the issue. The cover image, and the articles, have drawn much ire because they were in The Bulletin, a publication that's supposed to represent an organization and it's members. Obviously some of the SFWA's members did not feel The Bulletin has been representing them, but I also feel there are a whole lot of people (mostly non-members) jumping on the latest "hate wagon."
DeleteNot that I approve of such images as on the cover, but I've never had any prurient interest in them. When I see an image of a "chick in chain mail," I don't think, "wow, she's hot." Instead, I think, "wow, that's really got to hurt wearing all that next to the skin."
Chris, that's exactly what a large part of the uproar is about. That such an image appeared on the cover of the official publication of a writer's organization. As Ty points out, some of the members didn't feel that the publication represented them. Running this particular cover wasn't a good idea.
DeleteI do have to wonder if SFWA hasn't gotten so large and diverse that some percentage of the membership feels that the organization doesn't represent them on a regular basis. I don't mean the same percentage all the time, but a percentage of the membership which changes with what's going on in the organization at any given time.
Oh, and Ty, I had a friend when I was in graduate school who had made his own chain mail to wear at renn faires. He told me he only wore it against bare skin once. After he recovered from that, he always wore something under it.
Ha! Yeah, Keith, I've had friends who make their own armor. I've worn chain and a variety of leather armors, and ... uh, yeah ... padding is always a necessity. Never worn plate other than a helmet, but I figure it's the same thing. Not much of an armor person myself, though; carrying around a sword all day in the heat is enough for me.
DeleteA couple of quick updates.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Jean Rabe, editor of the Bulletin, has resigned:
http://www.sfwa.org/2013/06/editor-of-sfwa-bulletin-resigns/
For a different perspective on the controversy, Sarah A. Hoyt has this to say: http://accordingtohoyt.com/2013/06/05/that-aint-no-lady/
(I love Tom Kratman's comment on Christian Duty. It has multiple applications.)
Laura Resnick, Mike's daughter, has also offered another perspective:
ReplyDeletehttp://lauraresnickauthor.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/thoughts-from-a-different-resnick/
Holy s#!+! I just read the Hoyt article. Agree with it or not, it's some awesome writing, and she pulls no punches.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to Laura Resnick's post. She's always been a class act, and anything she says will be well thought out.
DeleteSarah's blog is one of the ones I try to read regularly. Her posts are rather long, and some days I just don't have that much time. But she's always thought provoking.