Jason Sanford

SciFi Strange, an interview with me

The Apex Publications blog has been focusing on Weird Fiction this month, so they decided to interview me about SciFi Strange. If you've ever enjoyed SciFi Strange, disagreed about SciFi Strange, or wondered what the hell is SciFi Strange, then you should go check out the interview.

Here's the link:  SciFi Strange, an interview with SciFi Strange author Jason Sanford

Many thanks to Krissie McMakin for doing the interview.

Feeling heat for your ideas is not censorship or thought-control

Update: This essay only focuses on why it was wrong for Resnick and Malzberg to use the terms censorship and thought-control against people criticizing the depiction of women in SF art. For my overall view on sexism in SF, see "Time for the men of SF to tell the sexists to go to hell."

 

Yesterday the summer 2013 issue of the SFWA Bulletin arrived in my snailmail box and I immediately read Jim C. Hines's essay "Cover Art and the Radical Notion that Women Are People." Now, since this is the official publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, it makes total sense that the Bulletin is a print-only affair. We SF/F authors don't need no fancy futuristic techie-online stuff! So if you want to read Hines' excellent essay, you'll have to hunt down a print copy.

But that said, if you've been following the online discussion about how women are depicted in SF/F art, you likely already have a sense of Hines' powerful arguments. So kudos to the SFWA Bulletin for publishing his essay, especially since the cover for their previous issue played a major part in the debate.

And kudos also to the Bulletin for publishing a rebuttal to Hines' points in the same issue, in the form of the newest dialogue between SF authors Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg.

Wait. What? I'm okay with Resnick and Malzberg saying there's no problem with how women are depicted in SF artwork? What kind of sick SFWA liberal fascist joke is this?

I raise that last question because in the dialogue Malzberg calls people troubled by these types of sexist covers "SFWA liberal fascists." Resnick and Malzberg then talk at length how the campaign to raise awareness on how women are depicted in SF/F art is nothing more than thought-control and censorship.

Now, I think Resnick and Malzberg are taking the issue a bit personally because in the previous issue of the Bulletin they discussed female genre editors, and took flack for commenting on the looks of one of the editors. I also know that they are trying to stir the pot on this issue—hell, they basically admit as much toward the end of their discussion (right before they say this type of thought-control and censorship leads us straight into a world full of Joseph Stalins and Chairman Maos).

But even though I disagree with their views, I have no problem with Resnick and Malzberg presenting them in the Bulletin. I've long enjoyed their dialogues and believe it's a good thing to have their views offered alongside Hines' thoughts. I should also note that Hines' essay nicely rebuts every reason Resnick and Malzberg raise on why sexpot SF/F covers are not offensive.

However, that doesn't mean Resnick and Malzberg's essay didn't piss me off. And the reason for said urine-anger is simple—they throw around the words "thought-control" and "censorship" merely because they've been made to feel uncomfortable for their beliefs.

News flash: Feeling heat for your ideas is not censorship. Having to defend your beliefs when challenged is not thought-control.

The only time I've ever agreed with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was during his concurrence in a Washington ballot initiative case. You see, the people in that state who'd signed petitions to ban same-sex marriage protested the disclosure of their names, saying it "subjected them to harassment from supporters of same-sex marriage." But as Scalia wrote in the Supreme Court ruling forcing the release of their names, "Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed."

Basically, what Scalia and the Supreme Court were saying is that while there might be discomfort and pain in stating one's opinion, this is actually a good thing. 

When Resnick and Malzberg compare the heat they're feeling for stating their beliefs with censorship and thought-control, they are playing a version of the political correctness card. We've all seen this before, where someone complains because they—horror of horrors—have to actually stand up for what they believe in instead of automatically having their beliefs agreed with.  But as the Supreme Court said, this is actually a good thing because it results in honest debates and discussions, which is how both societies and people grow and change.

So yes, I'm glad the Bulletin printed their thoughts. I have no desire to censor their opinions, nor does anyone I know. If you want to live in an economic free market, you can't then whine about defending your beliefs in the marketplace of ideas.

This is a hard post to write because I've met Resnick a number of times and really like him; I also love many of his stories. I've never met Malzberg but I've long respected him for his principled stands and writing style.

But they are absolutely wrong about this being a case of thought-control or censorship.

The Art of Adam Pizurny

Adam Pizurny's illustration for "Heaven's Touch"

As an author, there are two big fringe benefits to having your stories reprinted around the world—you get to meet new readers, and you discover new and exciting artists when they illustrate your work.

Illustration for Allen M. Steele's "The Emperor of Mars"

Adam Pizurny is a Czech artist living in Prague and he illustrates stories for the magazine XB-1. I love Adam's black and white illustrations, which are designed to fit in a single vertical column of the magazine. At right is his take on my story "Heaven's Touch," which appeared in the April 2013 issue of XB-1. The story focuses on a stranded astronaut whose space suit is infected—or haunted, if you will—by the ghost-like proxy of her dead crewmate. I think Adam did an amazing job capturing the essence of the story.

Another of his illustrations I really like is for Allen M. Steele "The Emperor of Mars." The space-suited face is what draws me to this illustration. The art both tells the story of what is happening and draws the reader deeper into Steele's story.

As you can imagine, Adam is a big fan of science fiction, and says he has loved the genre since childhood. Other samples of his XB-1 art you should check out includes illustrations for Nina Allan's "The Silver Wind" and Gregory Benford's "Immersion." 

Adam doesn't only do black and white illustrations. He works full time in graphic design and has a long list of impressive design and illustration credits, including music art, movie posters, and advertising murals. You can check out more of his illustrations here.

Do authors' obsessions with daily word counts result in bad stories?

A few years ago I wrote about how long it took me to write a typical short story. Long story short (I know, bad joke) I'm a slow writer, taking around 20 hours to create a 5,000-word short story. I continually write and rewrite and edit, these different creative aspects of fiction writing merging and mingling until I often do all three within seconds of each other. But as that post also makes clear, other writers have different processes. For example, John Scalzi stated that with "20 hours of butt in chair, I wrote and did the initial edit of 'The God Engines,' which is 30,000 words."

Since that post, my glacial pace has not increased or slowed. But compared to other writers, I might as well be literally turning into a giant hunk of ice. I mean, it sometimes seems like every author I know tweets or posts Facebook updates about how many words they wrote today. 1000 words. 2000. 5000. The other day my Facebook news feed even proclaimed that someone wrote 10,000 words in a single afternoon, which is astounding (or a big lie, or a joke, it's sometimes hard to tell with author's Facebook feeds).

But—be warned, here comes the rant—enough is enough. Come on authors. Stop the bragging. Or if you're going to brag, mention the total fiction writing package, not merely word count. Mention the hours you spend rewriting and editing, or plotting out and contemplating your novel. Mention how you gave up on a story and returned to it three years later. 

Don't get me wrong. I've bragged about my word counts before. I also realize word-count crowing is how many writers motive themselves. Hey, I did my 2,000 words for the day! Time to tell the world so I can keep my bonafide author credentials for another 24 hours!  But here's the question I'm pondering: Does an obsession on word counts hurt writers more than it motives them?

I mean, cranking out words doesn't matter a bit if your words don't make sense. Or if they're a jumble. Or if you write a 5,000-word digression which takes the reader out of your novel.

Despite this, it's still word counts we authors brag about. In fact, the highest profile fiction writing event each year, National Novel Writing Month, is built around word count alone. They even brag about participating authors writing more than 3.2 billion words in November 2012. The premise behind NaNoWriMo and our obession with producing daily word counts is that cranking out words indicates a productive writer. It's a belief that the hard part of writing is in the initial creative process. Once you bring words into existence, so goes this line if thinking, you can always go back and rewrite to your heart's content.

But what happens if that rewriting never happens? 

I've talked to a number of authors in recent years who say they hate rewriting and editing their stories. That's possibly how many authors have always felt, but I also wonder if our obsession on word counts is making new authors believe rewriting isn't as important as the initial spurt of creation. But here's a truth for you—without rewriting and editing, odds are the suck level of your precious story will be rather high. While creating words may be more fun, rewriting is what ensures your story will actually be read by people.

Because when you get down to it, readers don't care how long it took an author to write a story—all they care about is if the story's worth reading. And without rewriting and editing, odds are a story won't be worth much at all.

The Gordian Knot of the Night Shade Books Deal

This is a hard post to write. I'm a big fan of the novels published by Night Shade Books, which has published such groundbreaking works as the Hugo and Nebula Award winning The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. However, NSB has a history of not paying their authors on time, a trend which has intensified in recent months as the publishing company came under financial pressure.

A few days ago came word that NSB would be selling their assets — ie, books under contract — to Skyhorse Publishing and Start Publishing LLC. The deal will only go through if a majority of NSB authors agree to the new contract terms for their works.

Unfortunately, it appears the contract is a bad deal for authors, as Michael Stackpole details. You can also view a leaked copy of the contract on Scribd (assuming it isn't deleted in short order).

Night Shade Editor in Chief Jeremy Lassen claims "This is the last chance to make sure all of my authors get paid" and that otherwise these author's contracts will get tied up in bankruptcy for months and years to come. But I wonder about that, and about other aspects of the deal which are now emerging.

Know this — I don't have a dog in this fight, aside from the fact that I'm an author and support the rights of my fellow authors. But the more I learn about the proposed NSB deal the more this seems like a Gordian Knot which simply can't be untied without cutting everything apart.

There are so many unanswered questions. For example, as was posted on the blog Brillig,  Jarred Weisfeld is evidently tied in with this deal through the companies trying to purchase NSB assets. However, Jarred also is tied in with a literary agency called Objective Entertainment, which was mentioned in a SFWA Writers' Beware post. That immediately sets off warning bells, as does Michael Stackpole's previously mentioned analysis of the contract.

In my opinion, this asset deal is a way to cherry-pick the NSB's lineup, a view Stackpole shares. And as Stackpole adds, "Skyhorse and Smart are not buying books here, they’re buying Intellectual Properties, and at a bargain price."

The contract terms, and the fact that Objective Entertainment is, if not directly involved at least possibly tied in with the deal, leads me to suspect that the intent is not to publish NSB authors but to have their secondary rights to those books, which could then be sold to anyone and everyone.

Perhaps I'm wrong. But when a deal is so convoluted and non-transparent as this one, who can say. It appears NSB authors are screwed if they agree to this deal, and, since many of them are owed large amounts of money, also screwed if they don't.

Which is a damn shame.

End the Hugo Award 5 percent rule

The 2013 Hugo Award nominees have been announced and overall it's a strong list. I'm particularly pleased to see so many authors I know and stories I love make the final ballot.

However, there is one irritation — only three short stories are Hugo finalists in that category, while all the other categories have five finalists. This is due to the Hugo five percent rule, which states

3.8.5: No nominee shall appear on the final Award ballot if it received fewer nominations than five percent (5%) of the number of ballots listing one or more nominations in that category, except that the first three eligible nominees, including any ties, shall always be listed.

Cheryl Morgan has an excellent post about the rule and why it was established. She also invites the SF/F community to have a discussion on if the rule needs to be changed.

I personally believe the rule does need changing. This is the second time in the last few years where the short story Hugo category has run afoul of the rule (the other being in 2011). The changing nature of short story publishing — where there are more short stories being published in many more online magazines and venues — means it's harder for any particular short story to meet the five percent rule. It also wouldn't surprise me if other categories begin having similar issues with the rule in the coming years.

The Hugo Award are intended to promote and honor the best works of the SF/F genre, not be a slave to statistics and rules from three decades ago. I know the rule was well-intended when it was created, but it is not helpful in this current age.

Why Super Angry White Man is a pretty shitty superhero

Here's a tiny glimpse at the power of a white man: Once, while traveling out of state, I cashed a third-party check at a grocery store without showing any identification.

That may not sound like much, but my wife—who is a proud black woman and watched the episode unfold—couldn't believe her eyes. “I'd never get away with that,” she said later. We still laugh at the memory, which has become light-hearted shorthand for all the things in life I get a pass on due to me being a white man.

I was reminded of the check-cashing incident while reading the excellent essay “Donglegate: Why the Tech Community Hates Feminists” by Alice Marwick. While I'm sure most tech savvy people are aware of Donglegate, I still highly recommend reading Marwick's essay. In particular, pay close attention to her thoughts about “'Men’s Rights Activism' (MRA) — groups of men who refer to feminism as 'misandry' and advocate vociferously that men face more discrimination than women.”

Now, Men’s Rights Activism is both new and old information to me. This is the first time I've heard of the term, but the sentiments behind it—the belief that men, and especially white men, are being persecuted—is sadly not new. I've heard similar complaints for the last two decades. If a woman or a person of color dares to advance past a white man in life, out come the snide comments. That it's affirmative action. That they're not as talented. That the world is now biased against white men.

But as a white man, let me publicly call bullshit on this. I have never been discriminated against or held back in life because I'm a white man. Have other people beaten me to jobs because they were better than me or had a connection I lacked? Yes. Have I missed out on publications and awards because other writers were better or luckier than me. Again, yes. But my being a white man hasn't held me back one bit.

But what I have seen in life is how women and people of color have to work twice as hard merely to play on the same field as white men. I first saw this while growing up in Alabama during the decades after the Civil Rights Movement. But I've also witnessed this everywhere I've gone. I've seen women and people of color—merely because of who they are—be passed over for jobs and have their opinions dismissed and continually be given the worst assignments.

So why do so many white men now complain that they're the victims? Because the world is changing, and change scares the shit out of some white men. It used to be white men didn't have to compete against women or people of color. Now we do. Never mind that the playing field is still nowhere near level and fair—just the thought that being a white man isn't the power-trip it once was is enough to send some white men into fits.

Why do so many white men complain they're discriminated against? Because the funny, ironic truth is no one whines as much as a white man denied.

So-called Men’s Rights Activism is simply some white men justifying discrimination and privilege. It's simply some white men complaining because they didn't get handed what they wanted in life. It's some white men complaining because they don't have the balls to compete on the new playing field of life. (And if whiny white men hate one thing most of all, it's having their own sexist terms thrown back at them like that.)

Instead of whining about discrimination, or turning into the nasty superhero Super Angry White Man and hurling racist and sexist comments at anyone online who disagrees with you, white men should instead do like women and people of color have always done—deal with life. Work things the best you can. If you lose a job, get a better education or more training. If you hit a wall, find another way around.

But white men, hear this from one of your own—stop the whining. Sometimes life is unfair and sometimes it's a crap fest. But blaming your woes on women and people of color isn't just silly, it's wrong.