Rhysling Award Discrimination
Jan. 18th, 2017 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithFor some months, the Science Fiction Poetry Association has been squabbling over the definition of speculative poetry, what qualifies as "speculative enough," and in a slightly overlapping discussion, the name of the organization and whether it should say something other than "science fiction." I and several other folks experienced in poetry and small organizations have pointed out that trying to force your pet definition on other people will consistently start arguments and frequently cause people to leave.
Now it's Rhysling Award nomination season, and the officers rejected a poem for not being speculative enough. Said poem was originally published in a speculative magazine, Strange Horizons -- which means the author, the editors, and the nominator all thought it was a speculative poem. But their opinions are irrelevant; the poem is excluded from consideration because someone else doesn't think it's speculative enough, people in a position of power that allows them to dictate other people's actions.
Predictably, this happened. Here is the poem, "I Will Be Your Grave."
Regarding the allegations of racism: As a scholar of literature, world religions, and ethnic studies I concur with the editor's statement that "At worst, it's exclusionary and, yes, even racist to claim that a poem by a writer of color, published in a speculative magazine, is not speculative enough by white/Western standards to be worthy of nomination."
Look at the speculative elements and you can see why this happened: "Knocking on my bones / The door of my soul" and "She's searching for dismissive gods," and "Life leaking with time / Elapse of immortality, the air stills." Bones, souls, a plurality of higher powers, and distinctive conceptualizations of eternity and immortality are core motifs appearing throughout African culture and literature. Naturally when Africans turn to speculative fiction -- and African science fiction is quite big right now -- they use the motifs meaningful to them from their experiences, and thus the futures they imagine or the mystical realms they explore are deliciously different from those generated by European or North American backgrounds. These are readily recognizable to anyone familiar with African traditions, but often unfamiliar to outsiders.
These perspectives are routinely excluded from white society and, especially, recognition such as awards. Often there's no representation at all; when black people win awards, it tends to make the news because it doesn't happen much. It's usually not because the people rejecting them are the kind of racists who think black people are inferior. It's because they think black ideas are uninteresting and irrelevant -- in this case, "not speculative enough." Not "good enough." Not "really" speculative poetry. Not "worthy" of being permitted to compete at all. The awards typically go to things closer to the middle of the bell curve. Usually it's because people don't vote for black literature; the perspective shown by the award chairs and officers of the SFPA is common, though by no means universal. But sometimes it's enforced from the top down, like this case when an African poem shows up to the literary lunch counter and is thrown out the door by organizational fiat. The member who nominated it is not permitted to have a voice regarding what speculative poetry "is," the poem is not permitted to compete in the award despite meeting the technical standards, its author is excluded from the privileged circle of nominees, and the general membership is prevented from voicing our opinion about what is or is not "speculative enough" and "good enough" through our votes for the Rhysling Award. At the same time, this high-handed move directly blocks everyone else's mindful efforts to promote diversity in speculative poetry by forcibly removing the option of voting for this poem. Our opinions and work don't matter; we don't get a choice. Someone else gets to decide that. Someone with more power. Someone more important. Someone who gets to say which poems and poets can sit at the literary lunch counter, or not. Institutionalized racism is difficult to fix precisely because of examples like this where someone in power can directly thwart other people's hard work in solving the problem.
Which is a pity, because "I Will Be Your Grave" is a great poem that would've done wonders for fixing the problem of speculative literature being prevailingly white and having a reputation as an elitist clique. I would happily have voted for it.
One year I had four poems nominated, and they were all multicultural poems about different societies. My fans love that stuff. Someone complained that the poems were "exoticizing" other cultures. Well, that's a matter of interpretation; along with that complaint, I have readers of diverse colors and cultures who support me precisely because I incorporate all different perspectives and they like how I do so. Four different people liked these enough to nominate them. I suppose I should be grateful they got in at all, because they were a lot like the poem under dispute -- weird, luscious little musings about very different dimensions of experience.
The Rhysling Award for speculative poetry is open to nomination by SFPA members only, which means people pay for the privilege of nominating and voting for these poems. These are not uneducated dilettantes; they are serious mavens willing and able to put their money where their mouth is for the sake of showing the world what they consider the best speculative poetry of the year. The Rhysling anthology has consistently done that.
It is my stance that writing and reading about different cultures promotes tolerance. If some efforts are inept, this is a natural part of the learning process; if you're not making any mistakes, you're not learning, you're coasting. If some works are not to someone's taste, and if definitions of genre or quality vary, these are normal parts of the literary field; there is no intellectual exploration and discussion without dissent. These are features, not bugs. The problems start when someone in a position of power attempts to force their personal opinion on unwilling others by tampering with the process of an award or other activity. It undermines the integrity of the organization, taints the award, and contributes to social problems such as racism and waning literacy that are already quite bad enough without any more help. An organization can say whatever it wants about being fair and inclusive, but it is the actions which prove or disprove these claims.
I feel that the SFPA should reinstate "I Will Be Your Grave" to the Rhysling Award nominees and issue an apology to the poem, the nominator, the editors of Strange Horizons, and the membership at large; and they should cease tampering with selections by rejecting poems, unless disqualified by objective technical standards such as length or publication date. I am dubious that this will occur, but I wish to log my stance as a scholar, a diversity activist, a poet, and a poetry maven.
Discuss.
UPDATE: I have heard that the poem has been reinstated among nominees, but has not yet reappeared on the webpage.
Now it's Rhysling Award nomination season, and the officers rejected a poem for not being speculative enough. Said poem was originally published in a speculative magazine, Strange Horizons -- which means the author, the editors, and the nominator all thought it was a speculative poem. But their opinions are irrelevant; the poem is excluded from consideration because someone else doesn't think it's speculative enough, people in a position of power that allows them to dictate other people's actions.
Predictably, this happened. Here is the poem, "I Will Be Your Grave."
Regarding the allegations of racism: As a scholar of literature, world religions, and ethnic studies I concur with the editor's statement that "At worst, it's exclusionary and, yes, even racist to claim that a poem by a writer of color, published in a speculative magazine, is not speculative enough by white/Western standards to be worthy of nomination."
Look at the speculative elements and you can see why this happened: "Knocking on my bones / The door of my soul" and "She's searching for dismissive gods," and "Life leaking with time / Elapse of immortality, the air stills." Bones, souls, a plurality of higher powers, and distinctive conceptualizations of eternity and immortality are core motifs appearing throughout African culture and literature. Naturally when Africans turn to speculative fiction -- and African science fiction is quite big right now -- they use the motifs meaningful to them from their experiences, and thus the futures they imagine or the mystical realms they explore are deliciously different from those generated by European or North American backgrounds. These are readily recognizable to anyone familiar with African traditions, but often unfamiliar to outsiders.
These perspectives are routinely excluded from white society and, especially, recognition such as awards. Often there's no representation at all; when black people win awards, it tends to make the news because it doesn't happen much. It's usually not because the people rejecting them are the kind of racists who think black people are inferior. It's because they think black ideas are uninteresting and irrelevant -- in this case, "not speculative enough." Not "good enough." Not "really" speculative poetry. Not "worthy" of being permitted to compete at all. The awards typically go to things closer to the middle of the bell curve. Usually it's because people don't vote for black literature; the perspective shown by the award chairs and officers of the SFPA is common, though by no means universal. But sometimes it's enforced from the top down, like this case when an African poem shows up to the literary lunch counter and is thrown out the door by organizational fiat. The member who nominated it is not permitted to have a voice regarding what speculative poetry "is," the poem is not permitted to compete in the award despite meeting the technical standards, its author is excluded from the privileged circle of nominees, and the general membership is prevented from voicing our opinion about what is or is not "speculative enough" and "good enough" through our votes for the Rhysling Award. At the same time, this high-handed move directly blocks everyone else's mindful efforts to promote diversity in speculative poetry by forcibly removing the option of voting for this poem. Our opinions and work don't matter; we don't get a choice. Someone else gets to decide that. Someone with more power. Someone more important. Someone who gets to say which poems and poets can sit at the literary lunch counter, or not. Institutionalized racism is difficult to fix precisely because of examples like this where someone in power can directly thwart other people's hard work in solving the problem.
Which is a pity, because "I Will Be Your Grave" is a great poem that would've done wonders for fixing the problem of speculative literature being prevailingly white and having a reputation as an elitist clique. I would happily have voted for it.
One year I had four poems nominated, and they were all multicultural poems about different societies. My fans love that stuff. Someone complained that the poems were "exoticizing" other cultures. Well, that's a matter of interpretation; along with that complaint, I have readers of diverse colors and cultures who support me precisely because I incorporate all different perspectives and they like how I do so. Four different people liked these enough to nominate them. I suppose I should be grateful they got in at all, because they were a lot like the poem under dispute -- weird, luscious little musings about very different dimensions of experience.
The Rhysling Award for speculative poetry is open to nomination by SFPA members only, which means people pay for the privilege of nominating and voting for these poems. These are not uneducated dilettantes; they are serious mavens willing and able to put their money where their mouth is for the sake of showing the world what they consider the best speculative poetry of the year. The Rhysling anthology has consistently done that.
It is my stance that writing and reading about different cultures promotes tolerance. If some efforts are inept, this is a natural part of the learning process; if you're not making any mistakes, you're not learning, you're coasting. If some works are not to someone's taste, and if definitions of genre or quality vary, these are normal parts of the literary field; there is no intellectual exploration and discussion without dissent. These are features, not bugs. The problems start when someone in a position of power attempts to force their personal opinion on unwilling others by tampering with the process of an award or other activity. It undermines the integrity of the organization, taints the award, and contributes to social problems such as racism and waning literacy that are already quite bad enough without any more help. An organization can say whatever it wants about being fair and inclusive, but it is the actions which prove or disprove these claims.
I feel that the SFPA should reinstate "I Will Be Your Grave" to the Rhysling Award nominees and issue an apology to the poem, the nominator, the editors of Strange Horizons, and the membership at large; and they should cease tampering with selections by rejecting poems, unless disqualified by objective technical standards such as length or publication date. I am dubious that this will occur, but I wish to log my stance as a scholar, a diversity activist, a poet, and a poetry maven.
Discuss.
UPDATE: I have heard that the poem has been reinstated among nominees, but has not yet reappeared on the webpage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-19 12:06 am (UTC)It's one thing to let the members speak. See also, Sad Puppies. It's another thing entirely to *unilaterally* give a decent poem the heave-ho because it doesn't conform to one's own pet view of How Things Should Be. Ibid.
Jerques. Karma will out, but it won't be pleasant for the innocents caught in the middle. :/
Well...
Date: 2017-01-19 12:14 am (UTC)I'll just be over here.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-19 03:08 am (UTC)It's good to hear that the poem is reinstated; of interest to me on Bergmann's "How To Submit" section on sfpoetry.com was Postal submissions with SASE accepted only if you have no e-mail—postal submissions that include an e-mail address will be torn up into small pieces and danced upon. No IRCs; SASE not required for international postal submissions. I hadn't thought or read IRCs or SASEs since 'zine days. Does this say about Bergmann that any poem from anywhere on our earth would be treated equally?
Thoughts
Date: 2017-01-19 04:15 am (UTC)Probably so.
A problem the SFPA is currently having is that some people have a much narrower idea of "speculative poetry" than other people, and keep fighting about it. The organization is not big enough to split, and can't afford to lose members. We really need to be working on "strength in numbers" but that position is less popular.
It also does not help that, like most of fandom, a majority of the membership is white and reads white literature. This means African, Asian, South American, Native American, or otherly cultured literature has a harder time gaining attention because most members don't read it, aren't familiar with its motifs, don't understand it, and don't nominate or buy or vote for it. That creates a vicious circle in which poets of color avoid the the SFPA because it's not welcoming. After this little tempest in a teapot, I can't blame them.
>>Does this say about Bergmann that any poem from anywhere on our earth would be treated equally?<<
I have no idea.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-19 01:21 pm (UTC)Well...
Date: 2017-01-19 08:32 pm (UTC)Re: Well...
Date: 2017-01-27 11:35 pm (UTC)There's racism, prejudice, and bias, and here, I'm not sure any fit. The problem is "ignorance" in the original sense - not knowing something. Alas, I most often hear "ignorant" as a synonym for "rude" - which is a shame. Heinlein, especially, would have characters say speak on their own ignorance as a way of opening their own minds.
This strikes me as ignorance in that sense - again, I read the poem, didn't see "speculative" but upon hearing more, realized that, okay, yes, that was my lack of knowledge.
And you're right - this was handled badly, because it's not like there *weren't* resources with which one could have checked prior to doing something that would obviously be unkind. (i.e.: they could have asked the original publisher.)
Re: Well...
Date: 2017-01-27 11:49 pm (UTC)Bias is when people are treated differently. It need not be deliberate.
Institutionalized racism is when someone in a position of power uses it to influence how the organization treats people, and thus, discriminates against a different race. This case is a very close match for many other times when black people have been excluded. It's not always because someone dislikes them -- more often today, it's because they're considered irrelevant simply because their perspective differs from the dominant white paradigm. And that's exactly why people say "but I'm not racist!" while doing things like rejecting an African poem from a competition.
I don't think this mess was motivated by a dislike of black people or intent to oppress them. I agree that ignorance is the most likely cause. But the end result is still discrimination against a black author.
>>And you're right - this was handled badly, because it's not like there *weren't* resources with which one could have checked prior to doing something that would obviously be unkind. (i.e.: they could have asked the original publisher.) <<
They could have. They didn't, because they felt they had a right to force their personal opinions on other people, and they expected to get away with that. This is a common perspective among members of a dominant group, especially when facing a target from a disadvantaged group. They weren't expecting the social media shitstorm that ensued, but they should have. I and several other people warned them that this would happen, and they ignored us.
Re: Well...
Date: 2017-02-01 07:10 pm (UTC)And that would be a fair argument, unless they had, in the past, carefully researched a poem by "John Smith" to find it was, indeed, speculative, when they couldn't be arsed to do so for a poem by "Tlotlo Tsamaase" - if so, bias is clear.
And it's all pretty irrelevant. A good person should care that their actions resulted in a bad outcome, and an especially bad outcome, one where it was discriminatory (regardless of intent) and (this matters to me, at least!) one where it could look like blatant racism to the author and supporters, regardless of whether it was ignorance, bias, prejudice or worse.
Re: Well...
Date: 2017-02-01 08:22 pm (UTC)The "has" version is exactly what happened here. Each culture has its own conceptualization of things, which may overlap, but often diverge. What white Americans think of as science fiction, and what Africans think of as science fiction, are substantially different due to growing out of different cultural backgrounds. This means divergent motifs, metaphors, plots, issues, etc. Using this poem as an example: bones, graves, and souls are all very common motifs in African literature but much less so in white SF. When a white person looks at black SF and says it's not SF because they don't recognize the contents, that's personal ignorance taking the form of bias toward fiction they understand against fiction they don't. When they use their position of power to block African literature from participation in an award -- despite other people thinking it qualifies -- that's institutionalized racism.
>>And it's all pretty irrelevant. A good person should care that their actions resulted in a bad outcome, and an especially bad outcome, one where it was discriminatory (regardless of intent) and (this matters to me, at least!) one where it could look like blatant racism to the author and supporters, regardless of whether it was ignorance, bias, prejudice or worse.<<
Exactly. They did fix this. But the damage is done.
Thank you!
Date: 2017-01-19 03:19 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you!
Date: 2017-01-19 08:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-20 05:02 am (UTC)I find it strange (and yes, I agree that it's also racist) to exclude this fine poem.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-19 12:37 am (UTC)Thank you!
Date: 2017-01-19 01:33 am (UTC)*bow, flourish* Happy to be of service.
>> I'd spent the weekend keeping it as high-profile as I could on Twitter, and a blog post (or several, now that others are picking it up) usually helps to make sure the discussion doesn't roll away too fast. <<
I appreciate your hard work trying to make speculative poetry more diverse. This is just my contribution to the effort.
>> As of about forty minutes ago, I got an email from David K.-M. saying the nomination had been reinstated. Kendall Bell also reported on FB that David told him it would be reinstated. Rose Lemberg reports it has yet to reappear on the nominations-list website, but at least there is word.<<
Excellent. I have updated my post accordingly. Please let me know if or when it reappears on the page, so I can post about that too.
>> I have been navigating a hospital waiting room for the past few hours and have had spotty ability at best to keep up with developments.<<
Alas! I hope things get better for you soon.
RE: Thank you!
Date: 2017-01-19 01:38 am (UTC)I have yet to update my own post, so I had better do that now that I'm home.
Re: Thank you!
Date: 2017-01-19 01:49 am (UTC)Are you one of the folks who gets any good out of echinacea? For me, it puts my immune system on turbo, but it doesn't seem to work for everyone.
Re: Thank you!
Date: 2017-01-19 03:53 am (UTC)Re: Thank you!
Date: 2017-01-19 03:59 am (UTC)Garlic seems to do excellently against parasites (some people take garlic caspules as mosquito repellent) and pretty well against bacteria.
Experimentation is a great idea. People like to think that drugs and herbs are consistent, but the belief is a lot wider than the reality. All you ever really get is "X solved problem Y for a bunch of people."
(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-19 02:57 am (UTC)I'm glad to hear it. It isn't showing up for me on the website yet, but you have confirmation of the reinstatement in print. [edit: comment posted too quickly] Thank you for keeping this in the public eye!
(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-19 03:54 am (UTC)Subject to the requirements of the service and all that. I'm going to sleep for like two days now.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-19 03:55 am (UTC)Sleep well.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-01-19 08:53 pm (UTC)But I salute U.S. s.f. readers who *try*! Cheers, ajodasso, ysabetwordsmith...
Thoughts
Date: 2017-01-19 09:08 pm (UTC)2) In approaching the literature of another culture, it helps to work from the foundation up. That is, understand the land and its biosphere, because those form the basis of many metaphors. A kola nut reference will go right over someone's head unless they know it is small, brown, and sacred. Then it helps to know the history, because not only do writers often allude to that, it shapes many of the themes and conflicts in literature. You need familiarity with the culture in order to recognize subtle clues like how a character's clothes encode their class or other features. If you just come straight at the literature, you'll miss most or all of what gives it meaning. However, another option for understanding foreign literature is simply to look up the stuff you don't understand. You'll build up familiarity that way.
Just as one small example, hair is very political for African-American people. A character with straightened hair is probably more conventional and agreeable than someone in cornrows, and a person with natural curls or dreadlocks is considered "wild" so these styles are most often worn by the independent or rebellious personalities. Since I know this about black culture, I try to replicate the pattern in my character descriptions, without making it a direct correspondence to character traits because it isn't always. Even some black people think the arguments are stupid and say "It's just HAIR."
In Africa, of course, each tribe has its own particular styles, and these have evolved into patterns within (or across) contemporary nations. In some places a very close cap of curls is the norm; in others, more people let their hair grow out. Elaborate hairstyles -- and African hair is uniquely suited to sculpture -- are associated with high rank and/or special occasions. So that gets into the literature, and if you don't know it, you won't realize that such-and-such a style is traditionally Igbo or that seeing many women with fancy hairdos means either something is going on or you're in a place full of important people.
Hell, a lot of Americans can't wrap their heads around the fact that a dashiki isn't a dress.