Science Fiction - The Crazy Year

This is old.

This is new.

Sometime, June-ish, the science fiction and fantasy world blew up over a chain-mail bikini and a couple of old guys talking about science fiction publishing over 60 years ago in which they spoke admiringly of "lady writers" and "lady editors" and mentioned that someone or other was particularly good looking.

The. World. Ended.

This ancient June history is important because World Con just happened and the call for inclusive science fiction is continuing to gain strength with the article from the Guardian stating the dire state of modern science fiction. Both articles are extremely short and informative concerning events, though I'm having trouble finding something pithy to quote from them. Mostly, though, it's assertions of fact that are easily disputable.

Science fiction loves a good paradox. Here's one for you: how can a genre that dreams up alien cultures and mythic races in such minute detail seemingly ignore the ethnic, religious, gender and sexual diversity right here on the home planet, here in the real world?

Science fiction also likes a good Fantasy, and this is one of them. It's such a NICE fantasy. So CONVENIENT for our science fiction Church Ladies.

Wolf in Shadow

It's easy enough to point to no end of "diversity" in protagonists and easy enough to find the hard numbers that show female authors in SF and F to be at near parity (45% to 53%, IIRC) to male authors. But in the end we've still got the chain-mail bikinis or black leather body suits. Right? Well, I want to say something about that.

I'm a girl. Right? Well, who do I want to imagine I look like? When I design my toons in a fantasy computer game, what do I prefer to look like? Sure, chain mail bikinis are pretty darn silly, but so what? So is Mr. Mad Men there to the left. So is Conan. What am I supposed to do? Take my escapism dollars and pretend to be fat and dumpy?

And bitter? Lets not forget bitter.

Comments

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it. This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice. If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

What Cancel Culture is NOT

Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott. It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...

Synova

Search This Blog