The Latest SFWA Wank

[ysabetwordsmith]

 ... about harassment and sales figures.  The only really sensible part of any of this?  If you don't like an organization, leave.  But flouncing just makes you look like a pouty tween.

Comments

HUH?

[dialecticdreamer]

All I'm getting from this is the poster going to great lengths to not "name names", but describing a limitation of the organization he is either IN, or actually REPRESENTS, which are different things.

It has the tune of "SOMEBODY didn't like what Janey said to Margo about Lupe, and things just went badly from there."

I'm more "ask" than "hint" most of the time anyway, so I just want to roll my eyes at the WHOLE situation. (Whatever it is.)

Re: HUH?

[ysabetwordsmith]

Well, yes. This is typical of SFWA behavior these days. I just tend to keep an eye on it so people know that it's not a very professional organization regardless of what it claims, based on observation of people in and around the organization and its activities.

[catsittingstill]

The flouncer looks unprofessional to me. The organization... has had its problems in the past but appears to be cleaning up its act, and isn't, as far as I can tell, doing anything wrong here.

[stardreamer]

I wonder if this has any connection to the current kerfluffle over Hugo nominations?

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

I've read Wright's statement (at least the part on LJ). I'm not sure it's fair to diss such a statement as 'flouncing'. I've seen quite a few statements from our side, some of which were resignation statements, or 'why I considered resigning'.

Beale's actions have been trolling theatre, which merited expulson. But Wright had a good point about a professional organization representing all qualified authors, regardless of their opinions about politics.

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>> I've read Wright's statement (at least the part on LJ). I'm not sure it's fair to diss such a statement as 'flouncing'. I've seen quite a few statements from our side, some of which were resignation statements, or 'why I considered resigning'. <<

You can tell people why you're leaving, if you want them to know in hopes of encouraging better behavior. But it is always a risk. Used to be a small one, but today is much larger in the time of social media. It's fine if said only to the people in charge of an organization, whose business it is to know such things. Outside that, it makes you look bad no matter how justified your reasons are, and it can easily start a fracas. Leaving without saying a word avoids that -- and you've still denied them your attention and your money.

Re: Well...

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

You can tell people why you're leaving, if you want them to know in hopes of encouraging better behavior.

Well, I think there's more to it than improving the leave-ees by giving them feedback privately. If their behavior is bad, why not warn everyone against joining them -- thus doing everyone a favor. And you may pick up some allies, others who have left quietly, or who will now not join; if all these start to speak up, that may bring enough pressure to have some improving influence.

But it is always a risk. Used to be a small one, but today is much larger in the time of social media.

So? Fear to speak out with the truth, because even people on your own side will ridicule it as 'flouncing'? That's a meme I'd like to discourage.