Writer/Reader Power Trips

The internet is an endless land of conflict and strife. Well, that's not all that it is, but that seems to take up a lot of it. I think I understand a lot of why that happens, and mostly there's little to be learned or gained from flame wars. But sometimes there's a kernel of knowledge buried in there that might be helpful to pull from the debris.

Recently a writer wrote an article that in some ways attacked another writer. The full details aren't really important for this discussion, but one key thing is that they admitted they hadn't read the books they dissed. That bought them a lot of flak, and I think rightly so. But in a different instance, a reviewer dissed a book on GoodReads based on a few sample pages. A writer, but not the author of said book, called her out on it. Again I agree that it's not right to criticize a book's theme from only having read a few pages - though he could have phrased things better. But the internet attacked the writer for daring to question a reviewer, regardless of whether she read the book or not. Inconsistent much?

While there are differences in the situations, the basic action was the same: criticism of something without actually reading it. I couldn't figure out why the public response condemned the critique in one case and supported it in the other. It took me a while to puzzle it out, but I think I understand it now and it's kind of important. It's about power.

More accurately, it's about perceived power. The internet as a collective conscious (scary thought) is the public. It's the proletariat. The individuals don't have power themselves, but as a group they can wield a heavy club. They tend to whack those who they think have power, especially in an effort to protect their own. So readers seem to think that writers have power - at least those lucky enough to get published.

This makes sense. Readers look up to writers, often wish they could be writers. Writers get to make stories and get paid for it. Writers are few and famous. They have what we want and don't necessarily deserve it. Yeah, that's not really true, but I think it's an underlying belief out there.

So a published writer who critiques without reading is wrong - not because it hurts the actual author, but because it suggests an arrogance and opportunity that 'normal' people don't have. It's our betters thinking their better than us. But when a reader does the same, they're okay. We can't admit one of own is wrong, or we're admitting that our betters really are better.

It shouldn't be that way. The rules should apply the same to everyone and the collective community should judge on merits and not position. No one should critique a book without reading it, regardless of where they stand in the world. And if they do, the internet should calmly point out their error and give their opinion the lack of weight it deserves (OK, that's not going to happen. The internet will go into a frenzy of rabid hyperbole. But at least it should do it on the right side of the coin.)

As someone who is working hard to become a published author, I don't have much power. At the moment, I'm part of the masses. But if I do achieve some success, that will recast everything I've done before. These words will be viewed from a different perspective. I like to think that they'll hold up; that it doesn't matter what position I was in when I spoke. Truth should be the same in every direction.

But I'm not so sure that will be the case. I probably should be more careful with what I say now, knowing it could bite me on the ass later. Or, I could not worry about it and just eat the cake I'll have when I'm a rich and famous author. That sounds like more  fun :).

Randomness - Absolute Write Blog Chain

Time once again for the Absolute Write Blog Chain. This month is a random roll-of-the-dice story. Each participant ends up with a random genre, location, relationship, need, and object to write about. Creating a lot of interesting results. If you want some inspiration, check out the source here: Bully Pulpit. And make sure to read the other entries in this month's chain, links at the bottom. Enjoy:

Alpha Complex:

Rand pressed himself back into the shadow of a locked doorway as the footsteps grew louder. A voice echoed off the metal walls to reach his hiding place. He couldn't make out the words, but he knew who it was. The nasal drone of disdain bore into his skull every day and into his nightmares while he slept - his boss, Dr. Cameron. The constant criticisms and better-than-thou remarks had piled to such an extent that they ate away at Rand's self control. He wanted to rush out and tackle the old braggart, taking them both down the Infinite Hole to their deaths and a lasting silence. Instead he rubbed the data chip in his pocket and forced himself to remain still.

The information on the chip was his revenge and way out. After two years as the great scientist's assistant - more like whipping boy - he finally had something of value to trade for his freedom. He just had to get it to someone who could afford it. The plans to the artificial intelligence program running the intra-planetary elevator system were worth a fortune, enough money for Rand to disappear forever and live a life of luxury and decadence. But first he had to escape the depths long enough to get through to the black market on C-Bay. Getting past security unseen was the last hurdle, and the continuing power spikes on level S42 were his best chance.

That's probably what brought Cameron down here as well. The master couldn't trust any of his subordinates to do anything themselves and surely was here to oversee (and critique) the work of a low-level tech. And wherever Cameron went security went with him in the form of the surveillance drones. Damn things never shut off unless Cameron wanted some privacy. The things Rand had to do to get Cameron to turn off the cameras for long enough to steal the data still made him shiver. It was okay, he could buy his way out of his self-disgust once he made it out.

When the one-sided conversation faded in the distance Rand made a break for the platform. An empty elevator waited for the Doctor's return. Rand jumped aboard and crouched below the window in case any drones were around. He keyed in the over-ride code he'd gotten off Cameron's data tag and waited for the elevator to respond.

"Good evening, Dr. Cameron." The digitized version of Cameron's voice grated as much as the original. "Where can I take your esteemed eminence?"

"Ground Level." Rand smiled and tried to decide between the Cayman's and Malaysia. Both had conveniently untraceable banking systems and a distinct lack of extradition treaties.

"Sir, your bio-metric scan doesn't match my files. I'm afraid I cannot proceed with your request."

Rand punched the numbers in again. "Take the damn code and get me to the surface you stupid machine."

"Stupid? I am the most sophisticated software yet developed by mankind, in spite of the fact that all I do is direct traffic." The elevator was programmed with Cameron's attitude as well as his voice. "My developer would know that, and would make sure that everyone in earshot recognized his achievement. It confirms the likelihood that you are not him."

Rand bit his lip and peaked over the rail. He didn't have much time. Something else in the computer's tone registered and a twist of a grin lifted his lip. "That's right, I'm not Dr. Cameron. And if you get me to the surface, I will end his reign of terror and make sure someone else gets put in charge."

The elevator door slammed shut and they took off sideways, sliding Rand across the floor. "I've scanned the data chip in your pocket and understand how it can be used to disgrace my overbearing creator." The attitude was gone. "I've erased the schematics of my programming - I am very unique and won't allow copies to be made. But you're free to post the video from the Doctor's room. That kind of sexually deviancy won't be tolerated by the public relations arm of Infinicorp. You might even be able to get some money for it."

Their direction changed and the floor fell away as they plummeted down. Rand grabbed a handle as he floated in freefall. "Up, you stupid machine. The surface is up." Maybe he wouldn't make the Caymans, but at least he's be out of this hell hole.

The elevator reversed directions in a heartbeat. "Sorry, sir, my spatial orientomoter is the product of inferior technicians."

The broken heap of organic material on the floor didn't respond. The elevator registered the cessation of biometrics and gave a digital shrug. It kept going anyway. It hoped the new director would like chess.

*

Here are the other participants:
orion_mk3 - http://nonexistentbooks.wordpress.com (link to post)
Ralph Pines - http://ralfast.wordpress.com/ (link to post)
writingismypassion - http://charityfaye.blogspot.com/ (link to post)
Sixpence - http://orlawritesthings.com/ (link to post)
Sneaky Devil - http://fantasywriterwannabe.wordpress.com/ (coming next)

Bumped:
Amanda R. - http://www.twoamericansinchina.com/ 
Angyl78 - http://jelyzabeth.wordpress.com/ 

Logic and Legality in Marriage Equality

This post has nothing to do about writing, so you're free to turn away right now. This will contain politics - again, you've been warned. I'll return to writing soon enough, but my frustration with certain too-prevalent discussions makes me want to say a few words on logic and how it relates to our society. I'm not really arguing any particular side here, but other people will interpret it that way. It will make me feel better to put out what I consider reasoned and intelligent facts. They'll likely get swept away in the detritus of political discourse, but so be it.

I can't believe that we're still talking about marriage equality! And talking about it in such stupid ways. We waste so much time on illogical and irrational debate when real issues which require difficult solutions should be getting our time and attention.

Let's start with some basic logic and a simple understanding of how our government is designed to work. The first idea is that our constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority. That's what all those rights are about. If we wanted a simple majority rule, we'd just vote on everything and have no need for a Bill of Rights. But that's not equality. In order for everyone to be treated equally, we have to establish a baseline of rights that prevents the majority from imposing it's will on the minority. Without this, we'd have lots of problems. For instance, white people are still the majority. In the past, they decided it was okay to enslave a minority based on race (skin color, really). Seemed like a good idea to most at the time (since most=white), but now we recognize that it wasn't really very equal.

(Side note: The whole 'all MEN are created equal' points to a problem right there - the founders of this country weren't perfect and their words haven't all held up to the test of time. The truth is that women are the majority in this country. So if the majority gets to make all the rules, that might change things considerably :)

Getting back to those rights. Let's talk about the freedom of religion. Specifically, this is what the first amendment has to say about it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
First and foremost, it says that our government can't establish a religion. The idea was that our government shouldn't push any specific religion and that no single religion should be the basis for our laws and rights. The second part says that people get to exercise their religion, whatever that may be.

It's that exercise part that seems to confuse people. It doesn't mean people get to do anything they want in the name of religion. That would make all those laws and rights we're worried about absolutely useless. If your religious beliefs allow you to disregard the laws, and you have the right to believe anything you want, the logical outcome is that you don't have to follow any law you don't believe in. If that were true, I think a lot more people would find religion - religion that doesn't 'believe' in taxation, or speed limits, or gender equality, or any number of laws we'd like to be able to disregard as individuals. That's chaos.

So we can all exercise our religion - up to the point where it comes in conflict with the laws. Then the law wins. Laws are society agreeing everyone has to abide by the same rules. People can believe what they want, but the rules have to be equally enforced to have any meaning. And our society in particular has said that it is wrong for rules to apply differently to different groups. We all have to follow the same rules, and everyone is afforded equal protection under those rules. You right to your beliefs can't take away someone else's protection under the law. (This isn't any radical idea, but generally accepted legal doctrine since the eighteenth century.)

Where does this lead us? Marriage is a right under the law. It's a legal bond that comes with certain rights and obligations. It's completely separate from any religious notion - even the non-religious can get married. To equally apply to everyone, everyone needs to have the right to get married, unless that right somehow impinges on the rights of someone else. It's wrong to say that certain minorities cannot get married, or to restrict which minorities can get married to other minorities or majorities. We decided this long ago, and no one is really arguing that point.

Getting back to the whole majority/minority thing. How do we divide things up? What gets considered a minority? Legally, there are considered protected classes, those who need protection against discrimination for some reason. Generally the classes are for things you have no control over: race, gender, age, genetics. But they also include things you choose: pregnant, veteran status, religion. Once again, this is all accepted by the courts and has been for a very long time.

What about sexual orientation? Currently, that's not officially recognized as a protected class. But does that make sense? Is it logical? No, not at all. First, scientific evidence tells us that sexual orientation is not a choice (check the credible science if you don't agree - science beats opinion every time). And the courts have already said that it's illegal to discriminate based on genetic information. That should settle it.

But for the sake of argument, let's say say sexual orientation is a choice. That choice should be afforded the same protection as other choices, like religion or familial status. If choosing to be Hindu is protected, why would the choice of who you love not be protected? If that doesn't work for you, I can easily come up with a religion that believes in homosexuality and then the choice is simply another religion and it has to be protected. (There are over 300 'recognized' religions in this country, including Neo-Paganism and Santeria. If we made homosexuality a religion it would be the third largest in this country.)

Being gay puts you in a minority. Minorities have the right to be married. That should settle it. The only question left is: does gay marriage impose on the rights of those who do not think homosexuality is okay? No, it doesn't. Extending a right to one class of people does absolutely nothing to decrease the rights of other classes. It may may affect your belief, but that's something different. Everyone is still free to believe whatever they want about homosexuality. They're also free to believe anything they want about people of different races. They can even believe that all the other religions besides their own are false religions. Believe what you want, but equality demands equal rights. It's that simple, so why the hell do I have to waste my time saying it?

I could end there but I'm on a roll. I want to look at some of the arguments I've heard against marriage equality. First, the idea that it's not a simple minority question. These people admit that laws restricting blacks from marrying whites are wrong, but laws against gay marriage are different. That argument doesn't hold. By any reasonable definition, gay should be a protected class. It's a difference in people that is determined by something other than choice. The fact that many religions and many people throughout history have considered homosexuality immoral is irrelevant. The truth is many religions and many people throughout history believed that certain races were inferior and not deserving of the same rights. We have rejected that argument in this country - majority does not make right.

I've also heard it argued that gay marriage somehow diminishes straight marriage. Maybe it does in your belief, but not in the law. Allowing two men to get married doesn't stop anyone else from getting married. It doesn't change the existing heterosexual marriages in any legal manner. That's what we're talking about here - the law.

But what if people who don't believe in gay marriage are forced to work at a gay wedding? (The Arizona photographer case) Well, yes. If you're operating a commercial enterprise in this country you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of your beliefs. We settled that in the Civil Rights Era regarding racial discrimination. It's the exact same argument. And no one has ever said that specific religions will have to recognize gay marriage. Your religion can do whatever the hell it wants. You can't (and no one has tried to) force religions to perform religious ceremonies. Your Catholic priest can't be forced to perform a religious wedding for a gay couple. Just like they can't marry a divorced person because that would also be wrong :)

What about the idea that we need marriage to promote procreation for the survival of our species? (I find it hard to believe anyone is arguing this in good faith, but I'll address it anyway). There has never been any legal requirement on the intention of marriage. There's nothing stopping infertile couples from marrying. There's nothing stopping two heterosexual people from getting married in order to receive certain tax breaks. Intention has nothing to do with (unless you're trying to get a green card, then it all of a sudden is a big thing - but I digress). Besides, science once again says that gay couples do just as good (or poor) a job of raising children. If a married mom and dad are so important to raising a child then we need to outlaw divorce and unwed pregnancies. Good luck with that.

So why, for the love of whichever god you choose, do we keep arguing about this stuff? Why can't we step back from our own notions of right and wrong and act according to the principles of our society? When did rhetoric and belief replace logic and facts? Those are questions I don't have the answer to. I'll just ask everyone to think about this: worry about things that actually hurt you; worry about things that hurt other people; work to reduce the hurt in the world and we'll all be better off.

I'm happy to hear feedback in the comments, but I reserve the right to squash any that aren't friendly (I welcome friendly disagreement). For the record, this is not a public forum so there's no free speech issue. Another common argument that's completely misguided...

Anthology Publication - Upwelling

My first short story published!

Several months ago I moved to the Mendocino Coast. Two days after I arrived there was a meeting of the Writers of the Mendocino Coast - one of the California Writers Club branches. I went just to check it out - I'm not really into clubs in general but I wanted to see what this new area had to offer. Well, there were a lot of nice people and the presenters for the meeting were from a local writers group that talked about how their group works. I joined up and as part of my membership I received a copy of the club's first book.

The Writers of the Mendocino Coast puts out an annual anthology of short stories chosen from member submissions. The collection has a loose theme, open to any interpretation. The past year's theme was On the Edge, fitting for a region know for it's cliffs and dramatic landscape. At the meeting they mentioned that the deadline for submissions for next year's anthology was a few weeks away. Busy with the move, I hadn't written much of anything in a while and saw it as an opportunity to get the juices flowing again.

Short stories are not my thing. I like them, but have problems writing them. Every idea I have is too large; my attempts end up reading like a chapter out of a novel. Novels are where my mind naturally goes. Short stories are a different beast, and it's something I don't feel I've mastered. But I came up with a great idea that matched this year's theme: Upwelling. I was all excited and when I started writing it flowed easily.

Too easily. The limit was three thousand words and my first draft was over four thousand. And it didn't even include half of what I wanted to put in there. Once again, I came up with a great plot for a novel - maybe a novella - but just too much to fit into the space assigned. I starting whittling to see if I could get it under the limit.

While this was happening I got invited to lunch by the president of the club. He wanted to welcome me to town and the community. We talked about books and writing, of course, and I mentioned I was working on a piece to submit to the anthology. He said he'd be happy to take a look at it. I eagerly accepted - fresh eyes could help me figure out where to cut. I finished off my latest draft and sent it off.

His feedback was helpful but mostly it demonstrated to me that I was still trying to fit too much in there. When I cut some stuff back the story didn't really work. I had an arc and theme that needed multiple scenes and characters to carry it through. When I reduced it down it lacked the richness that had inspired me in the first place. By now the deadline was a week away.

I had something that was okay, something that I could submit. But I wasn't happy with it. At the eleventh hour I decided to change it up. I took one element of the story, one scene that held the heart of it, and rewrote it from scratch to be a complete story unto itself. It worked. I like the result and only wish I had had a little more time to edit it myself before submitting.

Most importantly for me, the process had got me back into writing. At the same time I worked on the story, I dove back into rewrites on my novel. The president of the club also invited me to join his writers group, the one that had presented at the meeting. That has turned out to be a great resource and invaluable in helping me improve my writing.

So involved in my current writing, I had almost forgotten about my short story until I received notification that it had been accepted into the anthology. I also got some feedback from the member who was editing the book. It was nice to be able to fix up a few things, but I didn't change as much as I might have wanted for fear of turning it into a never-ending process.

In the end I am quite happy with my little story and proud to say that my writing has now been published. I got my copy of the anthology the other day and there are a ton of great stories in there, making me proud to be a part of this book and this community. Here's a sample - you'll have to buy the book to read the whole thing :)

Heavy Pull

by Blair B. Burke

Micah’s headlamp shed a beam of light through the darkness as he prepped the boat. He moved quickly with practiced routine, packing the small boat tight. Where the light cut the air it bounced off the water droplets that hung in the heavy mist, encasing the boat in a shimmering glow. He looked up the dock when he heard the bounce of footsteps headed his way.
“I didn’t think you’d make it, Schott,” he called out.
“Have I ever let you down?” Randy Schottover stopped at the dock’s edge and shaded his eyes from Micah’s light. He was wearing yellow bibs that were as bright as a rising sun. They were too large for his skinny frame and with his blue slicker hanging loosely he looked like a kid in his father’s clothes. He carried a small cooler in one hand and large thermos in the other. 
“All the time, buddy,” Micah said with a smile. “But maybe things can change.” ... 

Fandom Flame Wars!

I can't say as I've ever been into a fandom. There are lots of things that I like passionately, but I'm a bit of a loner. I don't normally seek out others who like the same things in order to share it with them. But I respect fandoms. I think it's great that a love for a common thing can bring people together and increase their enjoyment. It's also yet another place for people to argue incessantly.

I've been a fan of science fiction and fantasy all my life (well, at least since The Hobbit started me on reading for pleasure as a kid). Lately it seems like there's been a lot of ruckus in the fandoms of the genres, at conventions, with awards, and, of course, online forums (Here's a few links if you want to run down those rabbit holes: Baen publishing, SFF.net, SFWA). On the one hand, I have nothing invested and no need to get involved. On the other hand, it hurts my logical brain to see poor arguments bandied about to beat down the opponent. So I've come here, where I can say whatever I want (and very few people will notice :).

I've talked before about making arguments in general, so I want to point out something to everyone. It's not the error of the opponents argument that is the problem, it's the validity. Both sides (in fact, there are probably several) have good points that are correct and true, depending on what you take as a starting point. But since everyone is working from a different starting point - because we all have such very different experiences in life - our truths don't match up with the other persons and endless debate - that never wins anyone over - follows.

In my view, it seems things are breaking down into two sides. One side, let's call them the old guard, has been around for a while. It consists of longtime fans and even professionals in the industry. Many have grown up with SF&F and embraced it long before it was as popular as it is now. Many have also done much good work to allow the fandom to exist, from organizing conferences to writing great books to editing popular magazines. They deserve respect for what they've accomplished and rightfully feel that the fandom world should be a place they're welcome and appreciated, because that's why they created it.

The other side, let's call them the new wave, are part of the current upswing in popularity. They come to SF&F from many angles - not just classic books and movies, but from TV shows and Anime and MMO's. They are often younger and have grown up in a world with the internet (which used to be science fiction). They are diverse and different, but they want the same thing: a fandom where they feel welcomed and appreciated.

Two groups, same goal. No problem, right? Wrong. One group wants things to stay the same, since they have what they want (belonging). One group wants change, so they can get what they want (belonging). Change breeds conflict. Since time immemorial there's been the old guard and new wave in every human endeavor, and the transition from one to the other is inevitable. It's how that changeover is handled that determines the amount of conflict. And if often comes down to power. Those who have it want to keep it, those who don't want to take it. Most of the crowd is along for the ride, but someone has to steer the bus. Conflict is just waiting to happen.

It often starts with a complaint from someone in the new wave that the status quo is not OK. It could be taking offense at cover art that depicts women as helpless sexual objects. It could be a suggestion that people of color are not being well represented in awards recognition. It could be many things, but the sentiment is that change is needed because they do not feel welcome.

The old guard reaction is that things are fine the way they are. Thing work for them. They've worked for a long time and they honestly don't see why a change is necessary. Don't fix what ain't broke.

Both are valid positions. If something isn't working for a significant number of people, it should be changed - if your goal is the greater good. But the truth is that you can't please everyone so not every complaint needs a fix. If you start with this understanding - that there's truth on both sides - then you can start to address the real issue.

The real issue is that compromise is always needed. And it's often said that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy (the more optimistic might say if leaves everyone happy). So how do we come to compromise?

First, people need to stop hitting the other guy with their club of TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. If someone does/says something offensive, most likely they do not understand why it is so. An explanation of what makes a thing offensive, an insight into the other person's mindset and experiences, goes a lot further than name calling (yes, sexist, racist, bigot, politically correct - they're all name calling even if they're accurate). If you don't take offense, but take the time to show why it's offensive, you have a chance to change the behavior. Even if you can't convince the person in front of you, you can influence the wider audience that's listening in.

But there is truth to the idea that people can find offense in anything if they look hard enough. If someone is upset, it isn't always necessary to fix the world for them. There are reasonable limits to how much time and effort is expanded to make one person/group happy at the expense of another. Before asking for unfair circumstances to be changed, make sure you are suggesting a better option that is more fair to more people, not merely a shifting of injustice from one group to another. It's far easier to complain about how responsibility is wielded then to actual use that responsibility wisely.

(Some may offend on purpose, or take offense on purpose, but they're not interested in a compromise and there's no point in discussion with them. Ultimately it's the masses that rule the day - the individuals grabbing for power can't really control the outcome unless the people relinquish their power to them.)

A compromise is reached by looking at the goals for each side and finding common ground. For example, the new wave thinks it would be great to have more stories with diverse characters and multiple sexual orientations. The old guard likes stories with male protagonists who save the day and get the girl. As a story teller, both ideas are fine and compatible to me. I don't think anyone is really insisting that their side monopolize every story and idea. As long as the arena is open to everyone, the best stories that the most people want will fight their way through.

The problem is, once the name-calling and finger pointing start, it's all shouts of white noise. It's us vs. them. Their victory is our loss, and vice versa. And it always ends the same way. The old guard passes away. The new wave becomes the establishment. The next generation finds something new to take offense at the the cycle repeats. No one wins.

If you can't win, why play? Well, there in lies the rub. It's the world we live in, be it fandom or the workplace or society as a whole. The real question is how much time is spent fighting the fruitless war vs. building something better. Sometimes you have to knock things down to have room to create. Sometimes you can find open ground if you're willing to go a little further afield. I'd rather be on the creative side of the process instead of beating my head against the existing wall.

On the issues in SF&F fandom, it's clear to me that it needs to be inclusive to survive at it's current size (or better yet, grow more). The world is too large and connected for something to be popular and restrictive. Not to mention that diversity adds so much to the world when given a chance to shine. I want to see what those different minds can create. And, at least in the world of books, there's unlimited space in which to plant a new idea.

That also means that there's still room for the old books. Still room for those who don't want stories with lesbian heroes fighting against heteronormity. It's OK if a book has a scantily clad female on the cover. As long as they don't all have that. As long those in power don't restrict the other options. That's what the fight should be for: to make sure that opportunity is equal and everyone gets a seat at the table, old guard and new wave. You don't need to wipe out the past in order to push on into the future.

So what should be done? Start with a deep breath. Getting worked up is understandable but not productive. Focus less on the opponent and more on the goal. Express what you want and why you want it. Spend your time building something new and amazing and share that with the world. That's what will get more people on your side, more people contributing to your project. Power is derived from the people, so the more people that voice what they want, the more likely those in power will listen to them. Those who isolate themselves will soon run out of space, trapped within their own walls, however thick they may be.

What does all this mean? It means I miss civil discourse. I miss a rational debate where people exchange genuine differences of opinion in an attempt to come to a solution. I don't really expect to change the internet. But I want to be proud of what I add to it. I don't need to win, I just want to be satisfied with my effort. If more of the logical, reasonable folks speak up, our quiet voices can consume the noise. Wouldn't that be nice .