Belated response to Helix kerfuffle

August 3rd, 2008 • Related • Filed Under

July has been a blur, what with the sewer line backing up, very expensive repairs, attempts to redo a bathroom ourselves, a cancelled vacation, house guests and a birthday party.

Because I’ve been blogging more for other sites (I will blog about MINE soon), not to mention my Suicide Girls column, I’m finally caught up with my RSS reader. I was somewhat shocked to realize I had totally missed a kerfuffle in the SF world, that happened almost a month ago.

I am not as eloquent as most. I’ve done a lot of catching up today, and realizing that said kerfuffle started many discussions in the SF ’sphere from racism (Tobias Buckell’s blog post is thought provoking) to violating the copyright of the racist (discussed at Making Light). I’m not going to hash out racism and copyright. Smarter people than me have said better things. Read them (I have to admit, I didn’t make it through the hundreds of ML comments, but there was a good discussion going on there.)

No, what I want to talk about is professionalism.

I think it was in a talk by John Kessel that I first got the feeling of the importance of professionalism in writing. And that goes from just making sure you log your submissions to actually being kind to people you meet.

When I asked James Maxey (an Odyssey graduate and recent lecturer) what his number one piece of advice was for attending workshops, i was surprised to hear him say, “Be nice to everybody.” You never know who can help your career 5-10 years down the road.

The initial letter that discussed “sheet heads” was unprofessional. It doesn’t matter if it was between two people and the author never intended it for public view. It came from the editor of a publication, representing that publication, to a prospective (but rejected) author.

Whenever you’re an ass in professional correspondence you set yourself up for a fall. Take the recent issue I had with the local bookstore, who responded to my publicist’s request for a reading for me by telling him (by reply instead of forward, which is what she meant) that it looked like it was setting up to be a big failure. When it was pointed out to her, her response was, “Sorry, I sent that to the wrong person,” not sorry for what she said. (I think the people crying “copyright violation” may be doing this sort of hands-waving distraction method. Not racist cause of copyright violation? About as logical as, “It’s not offensive cause we didn’t mean for you to see it.”)

The unprofessionalism didn’t stop there, though. As some authors requested their stories to be pulled from the site rather than have their names associated with it, said editor did professional things such as tell Yoon Ha Lee that it was fine that she wanted her story off cause he didn’t get it anyway and he bought it because, “(notorious bigot that I am) I was trying to get more work by non-Caucasian writers.”

The cherry on the sundae came when he replaced Lee’s story on the site with “Story deleted at author’s pantiwadulous request.”

Some people have made their careers on the fact of being the cantankerous bastard who shoots metaphorical big guns - and by the way, they’re good writers. And most people who love their cantankerous ways do so because they’ve never been in the sites of those guns, they just like watching the old bastards shoot. What’s the old saying - “When you slip and fall on a banana peel, it’s comedy; when I do it, it’s tragedy.” What interests me is that in writing, you can go Out There, and make a complete asshat of yourself, and still sell books if your work is good/loved/respected. There might be people who stop reading you because you’re an asshat, but others who say that the work stands apart form the author. But it’s funny - radio stars can lose their jobs over a racial slur, but it doesn’t seem to hurt writers (much) as long as they’re good writers.

I can’t see the executives of IBM or Coke sending out a racist email, or changing their websites to throw a third-grade insult (or, if they do, keeping their jobs afterward).

Which I guess answers the question of why there’s so much unprofessional action in this field even at the “pro” level: People don’t have to be professional. Readers seem to still be buying SF no matter how much asshattery some writers (and editors?) spew outside of their work. Maybe it’s the fact that it’s all freelance work, not a professional workplace environment with sexual and racial harassment laws to protect us. Maybe it’s the fact that it’s entertainment, and you can be a racist or a sexist and it’s OK as long as you sell books, just like you can be a complete “sugartits” hating, anti-Semetic actor and still make huge movies.

Will Helix survive this? As I’m getting wind of this WAY late in the game, and Helix is still online, I’m guessing they’ll be fine. Probably have a couple of months of fewer than usual submissions and lower than usual donations, but they will probably be fine. Is that the way things should be? I don’t know. (I know I won’t be submitting or donating.)

How important is professionalism in this sf writing profession I’m trying to break into? I thought it was important. Now I don’t know. We’ve said it a lot in the past couple of years: how it’s ironic that SF professionals can look forward to grand technological futures but have antiquated views of women/minorities, or even fear technology.

And how important is it to separate a writer/editor from their abhorrent personal views?

There Are 9 Responses So Far. »

Comment by Zoe Winters on 3 August 2008:

I think it’s sad that really well known people get their lives so personally scrutinized but I know that’s not what you’re talking about here.

I think being nice and treating others right is important. I think we’re all human and on the internet it’s so easy to hit the submit button and then wish we hadn’t.

But I think the grownup who is serious about being a success, whether in writing or in life, faces up to their mistakes and apologizes. And not because the wrong person saw it. Because it was a craptacular thing to say.

Small-mindedness begets mediocrity and I can’t help but think big shots who are assholes are living on borrowed time. Fans DO get pissed off and stop reading, and while some assholes still may remain famous, they’ve lost a lot of respect, and probably a lot of readers.

I’d rather be someone that people can say: “She’s a great person, she’s down to earth and she doesn’t think she’s better than me.” In the long run I think it gets more mileage.
Comment by Nobilis on 3 August 2008:

In the 21st century, “community” will become more and more important. The skilled asshat is going to be superseded by the skilled professional.
Comment by Bob on 3 August 2008:

I’ve always tried to separate an author’s works from the author when it comes to my beliefs about them. For example:

Ender’s Game is a fabulous novel, one of the best science fiction novels ever written (in my opinion). However, I think Orson Scott Card is a nutcase, I disagree with his politics and much of his morality. That doesn’t detract from a fantastic piece of work.

That said however, this is very much not the same thing. Firstly, because the guilty party here is not someone who’s produced anything fantastic, that makes keeping up with him worthwhile. Secondly, because this is not something that is kept separate from his work - this man is being deliberately offensive to at least two individuals (not to mention an entire culture) through his job. There should be boundaries between his professional life, and whatever crackpot opinions he may or may not hold. The fact that even after being fairly racist in a professional venue he proceeded to be childish and petulant about it publicly is detestable. To me, it wouldn’t affect my perception of his public works if we was the most racist man alive in private, but when he does it through the medium which he puts out, and then is childish about it then it’s a different story.

Furthermore, the latest refusal to allow people to remove their stories strikes me as moderately questionable from a legal standpoint - but I guess it would depends on what agreement the parties initially signed.
Comment by Bob on 3 August 2008:

Correction to my last post:

*if HE was the most*
Comment by Tim on 3 August 2008:

I think professionalism is important whether you’re a writer, an editor, a center fielder, or a carpet installer. You treat other people the way you would want them to treat you. It’s not that complicated. And if you screw up and say or do the wrong thing (which we all do from time to time), you take responsibility and say, “I’m sorry.” I think reputations do matter, even in a field like writing where people can separate your work from your behavior. Maybe not in the short term, but people can have long memories. How you conduct yourself will affect others’ willingness to go out on a limb for you, to make that phone call on your behalf, to write a blurb for you, or to recommend you to a colleague. It’s in your best interest to be professional. It also happens to be the right thing to do. Too bad some people forget that.
Comment by Jason R on 4 August 2008:

I have some slightly mixed feelings on this, though I largely agree with you, Mur. It was unprofessional in the extreme to send a letter like that. It was even more unprofessional to express those kinds of views, in that kind of language, as a representative of a professional publication.

That said, I’m not entirely sure I dispute his right to hold such views. I can’t remember if it was Thomas Payne or Patrick Henry who said “I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” He has as much right to think whatever he wants as I have to think that he’s an idiotic, backward-minded trogolodyte.

Had he been sending a similarly-themed message to a friend, as a private correspondence, then I would think his apology (”I’m sorry it got out”) would be perfectly appropriate. I would also think that his views were repugnant, and would still happily say so. The problem is that, as Mur says, he crossed the line when he sent it as a professional letter.

I guess where I’m going with this is that people have the right to think (and as their personal views, say) whatever they want, whether we like it or not. However, we equally have the right to explain to them why their views are not only wrong, but also self-destructive. In the end, I think that’s got to be a better way to go than just calling someone names on a blog.
Comment by Jason R on 4 August 2008:

Oh, I forgot to add… Does anyone else feel that Helix Kerfuffle would be a GREAT SF character name?
Comment by Timothy on 4 August 2008:

I agree with Bob about Ender’s Game - great novel, OSC’s philosophies I don’t really agree with and I’m not a Mormon, but I can still enjoy his stories.

Lawrence Watt-Evans - another great writer, but I just completely lost respect for him with his attempted spin of Sander’s words; and I won’t be buying anything more from him as a result.

The difference? I suppose whatever else, OSC owns his convictions, he may be a nutter, but he owns his nutterhood.

LWE trying to soft peddle Sander’s words when it’s fairly obvious what he meant is just an indefensible position - I think everyone is pretty clear exactly what he was saying. That’s more along the lines of trying to put a throw rug over the carpet where you just spilled ink. You need to own up to the fact that a fellow editor just went off the deep end, not try to cover it up with what most people at best will see as a weak attempt to soothe people, and at worst an out and out lie.

Whatever you are - own it, be it. Be a nutter, be a racist, be a wanna-be-writer (Well, Mur’s no longer in that category with the playing for keeps novel coming out - Congratulations!!), be humanitarian, be charitable. Just be real.

I’m a wanna-be-writer, I’ll be that way for a long time and I own it, every day I work at it.
Comment by Dov on 6 August 2008:

When I was younger, I thought “Ender’s Game” was a wonderful novel and I chose to attend ASU partly on the basis that Orson Scott Card was teaching a creative writing seminar there. Of course, this was back when I thought I might become a writer someday, before I realized that I just really enjoy reading stories but I don’t have any good stories to tell.

Card’s creative writing was excellent in terms of learning creative writing. The man truly does have a solid grasp of storytelling. But one incident continues to stick in my mind.

As with many such seminars, all participants read one another’s stories and critique them in a round-table discussion. As a minor point, I commented that the phrasing in one story came across as a bit homophobic and that may alienate some readers. Card became very agitated, insisted that there is no such thing as “homophobia”, and continued to rant in that vein for about fifteen minutes before we could get back to critiquing stories.

At that point, I had no idea Card held such beliefs but it was shortly afterward that I came across an essay Card had written for a Mormon magazine called “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality” which made his feelings on the subject quite clear. Controversial as that view was, even for the early 90s, I only learned of it because people had found the article, transcribed it, and began reprinting it on the ‘net.

Card’s response was similar to the one in this current kerfluffle. He insisted that the article was intended for a very specific audience and, therefore, anyone outside of that audience who read it had no business being offended by it since it was not meant for them to see. In addition, he threatened to sue everyone who reprinted it for copyright infringement. Since then, he has continued to write many more articles on the same theme, as well as expanding into the anti-Muslim genre.

Over the years, I continued to read Card’s novels and, while I still enjoyed some of them, knowing what I did of Card’s views on homosexuality made his tragic, twisted portrayals of gay characters (and Muslim characters) difficult to ignore. Eventually, I realized I just couldn’t bring myself to keep reading his work because an author does NOT stand apart from their work. An author’s beliefs and views fundamentally shape their work. In fact, back at the seminar, Card told me that being a writer was the best way to change the way other people see the world.

In a similar vein, I once had an offer to illustrate an upcoming novella. It was a good offer with a promise of regular royalties on sales of the book. But, after reading the manuscript, I felt I could not, in good conscience, create illustrations for a story that written based on an ignorant and racist interpretation of Japan with a half dozen racist “jokes” on every page. The money would have been nice but I just couldn’t do it.

We’re all a little nuts, it’s true. Some nuts are tolerable. Some are not. But creative nuts tend to express their nuttiness through their work. An author’s work does not stand apart from the author.