ysabetwordsmith (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2014-02-10 09:32 pm
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2014-02-10 09:32 pm
Entry tags:
Editing vs. Censorship
It's time for our regularly scheduled SFWA squabble. Here's a piece by C.C. Finlay and a piece by David Gerrold. You know how I express my dissatisfaction with this organization that seems to start a brawl every few months? I stay away from it, and associate with saner ones.
Let me explain the difference in between editing and censorship. (Credentials: I am a professional editor. I am a diploma-holding literary scholar.) These things are about the power differential between people who make decisions, and people who are affected by those decisions ...
Editing is soliciting, selecting, and polishing the best material you can get for your publication. That doesn't mean you sit on your ass and just pick your personal favorites. It means you need to know the material well enough to identify the best offerings. It means if you spot a gap in your goodies -- oh, say, if your readership states that they want more diversity -- then you go out and find some to put in your pages. A good editor encourages people to create and submit stuff; the more, the merrier. Now, you can't and shouldn't publish everything. The rejections should be based on quality, not bias, so long as they suit the parameters in your submission guidelines. If you want to talk about controversial topics, great, get people to comment on those in a responsible manner.
Censorship is when you use your position of power -- any power -- to shut people up and/or control the information that other people can access. This causes problems. First, it pisses people off. Second, it can lose you money and support, thus causing your publication or your government to go under. Making your editorial environment hostile to certain groups -- such as women, queerfolk, people of color, the lower class, or whomever else you've decided to hate -- is censorship. If you don't publish work by people of a certain group, or publish proportionally less of it than submitted by people you like, or you don't pay them as well, or you frequently print things that are abusive toward a particular group, or you don't review their books, that's discrimination. It's not a victimless offense, either: it directly undercuts people's ability to make money and therefore survive in this society, and to access different cultural viewpoints and therefore make good decisions about interacting with other people. Now, that's often legal if you're not a publically funded organization. That doesn't make it okay. That doesn't make it particularly good business practice either. It certainly does not make for the best cultural material.
You can make whatever stuff you want. You can publish whatever stuff you want. You can buy whatever stuff you want. That's all part of free will and a free marketplace. But when you use your freedom in attempt to throttle someone else's freedom or otherwise hurt people, that makes trouble for everyone. So if you decide to practice censorship, some people will complain about that, as well they should. You can run a clubhouse however you want. If your professional organization mainly comes to people's attention when it gets into an argument or does something embarassing, however, that's not really what most folks want from a professional organization. This will likely be reflected in your membership.
Happily there is also the Speculative Literature Foundation. I'm not a member, but I do respect their accomplishments and professional bearing. Notice that their diversity chops appear toward the top of the page.
EDIT 2/11/14:annathepiper has linked several posts on this topic.
Let me explain the difference in between editing and censorship. (Credentials: I am a professional editor. I am a diploma-holding literary scholar.) These things are about the power differential between people who make decisions, and people who are affected by those decisions ...
Editing is soliciting, selecting, and polishing the best material you can get for your publication. That doesn't mean you sit on your ass and just pick your personal favorites. It means you need to know the material well enough to identify the best offerings. It means if you spot a gap in your goodies -- oh, say, if your readership states that they want more diversity -- then you go out and find some to put in your pages. A good editor encourages people to create and submit stuff; the more, the merrier. Now, you can't and shouldn't publish everything. The rejections should be based on quality, not bias, so long as they suit the parameters in your submission guidelines. If you want to talk about controversial topics, great, get people to comment on those in a responsible manner.
Censorship is when you use your position of power -- any power -- to shut people up and/or control the information that other people can access. This causes problems. First, it pisses people off. Second, it can lose you money and support, thus causing your publication or your government to go under. Making your editorial environment hostile to certain groups -- such as women, queerfolk, people of color, the lower class, or whomever else you've decided to hate -- is censorship. If you don't publish work by people of a certain group, or publish proportionally less of it than submitted by people you like, or you don't pay them as well, or you frequently print things that are abusive toward a particular group, or you don't review their books, that's discrimination. It's not a victimless offense, either: it directly undercuts people's ability to make money and therefore survive in this society, and to access different cultural viewpoints and therefore make good decisions about interacting with other people. Now, that's often legal if you're not a publically funded organization. That doesn't make it okay. That doesn't make it particularly good business practice either. It certainly does not make for the best cultural material.
You can make whatever stuff you want. You can publish whatever stuff you want. You can buy whatever stuff you want. That's all part of free will and a free marketplace. But when you use your freedom in attempt to throttle someone else's freedom or otherwise hurt people, that makes trouble for everyone. So if you decide to practice censorship, some people will complain about that, as well they should. You can run a clubhouse however you want. If your professional organization mainly comes to people's attention when it gets into an argument or does something embarassing, however, that's not really what most folks want from a professional organization. This will likely be reflected in your membership.
Happily there is also the Speculative Literature Foundation. I'm not a member, but I do respect their accomplishments and professional bearing. Notice that their diversity chops appear toward the top of the page.
EDIT 2/11/14:
annathepiper has linked several posts on this topic.
no subject
I do a lot of work for historical journals and I expect my submissions to be edited. I'd be very angry if they were edited in such a way to change what I was saying about a given topic-that's a form of censorship. There's room for speculation in history but it's important to state in terms that it is speculation.
That said, as a member of a largely voiceless minority I get extremely ratty when cis people write badly drawn trans characters. If people want a clue, they need only ask.
Thoughts
Agreed.
Also, my partner Doug is into animation history, I do gender studies and ethnic studies and all kinds of stuff. There is going to be some material that is just plain touchy because it is old and society has changed. The appropriate way to handle that is to talk about the changes when you reprint the stuff, not chop it to confetti or refuse to print it ever again.
>> That said, as a member of a largely voiceless minority I get extremely ratty when cis people write badly drawn trans characters. <<
Yes, that sucks. We need coverage of diversity, and ideally, it should be good and accurate.
Feel free to ask me for some during any relevant prompt call. I have a number of trans characters.
>> If people want a clue, they need only ask. <<
That's generous of you. Many minority folks get tired of being asked and don't want to teach people. But if nobody does the teaching, then even open-minded outsiders can't learn.
If you ever want to do a "transfolk for writers" post, I'd be happy to host it. My readers love that stuff.
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
http://cmcmck.dreamwidth.org/199022.html
Is the item that might have possibilities.
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
As you can see, the original got quite a conversation going, so I'll try to produce something when paid work allows me time to get onto it!
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Sorry about that. :o/
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
*ponder* It might be useful to point out logical fallacies such as overgeneralization that apply to misconceptions across a wide range.
Re: Thoughts
I'll have a cogitate when I have a bit of time to spare and see if I can work something out.
Re: Thoughts
I'll tattle on myself here. Walking about, I would see an individual with extensive sleevework, shorthair and vertically concise. I couldn't fit this person into a cognitive box/label, the presentation was ambiguous. Later, I realized seeing her washing up in the ladies I entered, she must not be a transman. (or at least not one disconcerted using the ladiesroom)
Re: Thoughts
Likely so.
>> Later, I realized seeing her washing up in the ladies I entered, she must not be a transman. (or at least not one disconcerted using the ladiesroom) <<
Bathroom use is a huge issue for transfolk. Often they are required to use the one that matches their current genitals, not their gender. Some places they're not allowed to use either.
This is why I'm in favor of having a unisex facility and/or a family bathroom available.
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Thankfully, the law here in the UK now provides trans women with the same basic rights as cis women so many of the issues around things like loos simply don't occur, although I have been around long enough to remember the days of being an Orwellian 'unperson' all too well.
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Gotta keep everyone separated.
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Not a privilege to be who you are, but to be accorded the privileges assigned to a certain group.
>> Due to the assumptions I mention tall or homely cis women are at risk from being insulted by complete strangers. <<
Yeah, that's not good for anyone either.
>> Thankfully, the law here in the UK now provides trans women with the same basic rights as cis women so many of the issues around things like loos simply don't occur, <<
That's good.
>> although I have been around long enough to remember the days of being an Orwellian 'unperson' all too well. <<
Doubleplusungood.
Re: Thoughts
So much hinged on that piece of paper!
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
Re: Thoughts
no subject
You're welcome!
no subject
*sigh*
But by the time I started making sales, the problems were becoming more visible. This didn't bother me at first, so I kept paying attention.
I looked at the qualification guidelines and realized that none of my stuff fit -- stuff I was getting paid for which is my marker for professional vs. hobby activity. And it wasn't just a few cases; the pattern was that most of the things didn't qualify. This continued as my wordsmithing income rose to a significant portion of household budget. Clearly the organization was missing a large swath of the marketplace. This was inefficient and troublesome.
The wank continued. Eventually I decided that the organization wasn't serving the part of the professional marketplace that I inhabited, wasn't doing anything I found particularly useful, and couldn't seem to behave in a mature manner for more than a few months running. So I stopped trying to become a member.
That was in the early to mid 1990s. It's just gotten worse since then. Very disappointing.
I do not foresee them managing to fix the problems after this scandal, any more than after the other several dozen or so. They might. There are certainly people trying. But I think they are outnumbered by members who think that farting rainbows are something appropriate for a professional organization's official t-shirt. Not even my inner 13-year-old boy thinks that is funny.
Re: *sigh*
--Rogan
Re: *sigh*
I know a bunch of folks who either gave up on it, or managed to join but quit after a few years. That org seriously does not serve the needs of folks outside the mainstream.
>> I seem to run into the problem that the sci-fi purveyors I saw, be it magazines or organizations or whatever, seemed to be sick of soft sci-fi, and want all hard or military. <<
Some are. There are some that specialize in sociological SF though. It takes digging to find good markets. The market guides have pretty much all gone online, and the free ones have either closed or gone to subscription. So that's when I kind of gave up on most magazines.
>> Plus my LGBT stuff is apparently considered its own category. <<
That sucks. On the bright side, the Lambda Awards and the Tiptree are both heavy into that. Check their winner lists, then look at the publishers. Those publishers -- of books or shorts -- are buying queerlit. I tend to mine the Rhysling for places to send poetry.
>> I seem to have a much easier time selling directly to my readers, rather than trying to sell to a magazine or a middleman. <<
Yeah. My readers like what I write. They ask me for far-out things. They don't squick over my ... well ... "you just gestured to ALL OF ME." And they can keep up with my output. I have individual readers who are buying more from me than editors ever did. Hell, I have a handful who are buying more from me than whole magazines publish in a year. Now, it's taken us six years of concerted effort to get the project this far, and last year was the first time it crossed ahead of my conventional publishing topdog, Llewellyn Publications. But I'm hearing from a lot of folks that crowdfunding outperforms conventional publishing for people who write or read outside a narrow mainstream field.
I'm thrilled that you're starting to see some luck with this. I like your writing, and your graphic strips too.
no subject
The petition's author, Dave Truesdale, described the 2007 mostly-women PK Dick Award shortlist as, and I quote, "vagina-heavy" and the authors as "five furry pussies on the ballot."
I was merely very disappointed in the signatories. Now I'm very angry. Anybody who would sign a petition by this asshole is on my die in a fire list.
no subject
--Rogan
*snrk*
I think that would be prudent for job applications too, at least for the first round or two. It would at least give people a chance to get their foot in the door.
Re: *snrk*
0_o
XYZ, dude, your privilege is flapping in the wind.
>> I was merely very disappointed in the signatories. Now I'm very angry. Anybody who would sign a petition by this asshole is on my die in a fire list. <<
Remember that petitions share some common weaknesses with surveys and test questions. Most people don't look at who made them. Many don't even look at the background context or how well-worded the lines are. They just think about whether they agree with what the words say. That may or may not match their actual stance on the issue and in fact some petitions are designed to mislead people or otherwise cause trouble.