Do Better: SFF without Sexual Violence discussion
Group Guidelines - Town Hall
>
Excluding Authors - (Nov 16 start)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Looking forward to your thoughts!
Mod
- Do you have any questions about our rule?
- Are there any other aspects you think we should add to our considerations and guidelines?
I am not sufficiently cognizant of which authors are unethical in "real life" so am eager to learn from others in the group on this.However, I would like to propose that if possible we could list Authors who are consistently sexist/homophobic/transphobic/supremacist et. al. within their writings, and an ongoing compilation of specific works that are exemplars of the above or other offensive aspects.
I realize this is probably a task requiring centuries, but I'd like to at least commence.
What should we do with authors with past controversies like Elizabeth Bear and the RaceFail issue? https://fanlore.org/wiki/RaceFail_%2709 I did not follow the debacle when it happened, and only came across it during another one involving her and an another female author.
Mod
I realize this is probably a task requiring centuries, but I'd like to at least commence...."
I'm glad you raised this, let's discuss in more detail.
I think some of this will happen organically through this discussion and over time, as we review member's bookshelf suggestions :) All excluded books will be captured on our exclusion thread.
The main purpose of the group is to build a SV free bookshelf database. I now have the working assumption that most older works will be excluded for the reasons you raise. I'll be pleasantly surprised if members suggest older works that are have none of these issues and are approved for our bookshelf.
QUESTIONS:
1) Is building a seperate longlist worthwhile if attitudes in many older works are likely considered either sexist/homophobic/transphobic/supremacist by our group's standards?
2) I'm sure there are modern works with these issues but certainly less so from the large and small publishing houses. RR, I think you possibly read more self published works than most of us, are you encountering these types of issues there?
3) What do the rest of you think?
Mod
I admit to being uneasy whenever she gets mentioned, in light of the RaceFail affair and some other controversies that involved her (albeit those seem to be allegations only). I'm not sure I can separate my personal diffidence towards her from hard facts in this specific case, though.
Mod
I think this is a great example to discuss. Here is my thinking. As always, I'm open to hearing and considering other povs.
In the reading I've done on this controversy, I found it difficult to make any judgements. Here is why...
Did and author use their power, money and fame to oppress others? I haven't heard any evidence of this. To me it read like drama contained between 3 people
Is it just a difference of opinion of people being mean or silly on twitter? Kind of? Other SFF authors have come out in support of both sides. To me, it's inconclusive and we'll probably never know, unless more information comes to light or the perceived bad behaviours on either side are repeated. In the meantime, I'm uncomfortable excluding any of these 3 authors based on different perceptions of their behaviors. We'd instead make judgements on the contents of their works.
Has anyone seen any new reports or more conclusive evidence that shows a pattern of bad behaviour from any of these 3 authors?
Mod
Yeah, this is what I was referring to in my previous comment. As far as I can see, what we have to go on in this situation are a handful of blog posts, subreddits and Tweets both defending Rowland and accusing them of sketchy behavior (besides their own open letter, of course).
I decided to steer clear of the work of everyone involved in this story, but as I mentioned that's my personal preference, and I wouldn't advocate for extending the same treatment of these authors on a group level.
In my mind banned authors should be those who are vocally, openly, unmistakably discriminatory, hateful and offensive in their views and/or behavior: think JK Rowling, Orson Scott Card, Mark Lawrence (Marion Zimmer Bradley, H.P. Lpvecraft) ... we know the names.
I don't feel like digging for dirt in subreddits and subTweets, looking for something to hold against authors - if and when problematic issues should arise about any of the authors in our shelf, we'll discuss how to proceed together, case by case.
For this same reason I don't feel the need of providing a blacklist of banned authors: I definitely see the appeal in it (and I'm not *against* it should chose to create one) but our main goal should remain focused on shining a light upon SFF works that propose worlds and stories free of SV, not giving space to those who don't, problematic authors included.
Mod
I too only learned about RaceFail a couple of months ago. It certainly raises the question of bad behavior and contrition. Here are some questions for us to consider
1) If our only rule (so far) is to exclude authors who use their power, money and fame to oppress others. Would you agree that any RaceFail authors who didn't apologize and/or change their behaviour after RaceFail should be excluded?
2) What if there is evidence that a RaceFail author listened, apologized and attempted to do better in their writing in the last decade? Would you still want their entire body of work excluded for views expressed a decade ago? Or would you want us to make the decision based on each works content?
3) Did anyone witness RaceFail in 2009 and track the authors involved since then? Or is anyone willing to do some deeper research in the future and report back?
Why I raised the idea of contrition- Joy Reid is a woc journalist and has coined the term "off ramps" as a way to move forward in our increasingly polarized world. Anand Giridharadas, another journalist interviewed her about her life and this idea. I recommend reading it, it's about a 20 minute read with Anand's preamble, or 5 minutes if you scroll down to the last 50% of the interview.
https://the.ink/p/joy-reid-wants-to-g...
And please share any articles that express your views on the subjects in this thread.
Mod
Sorry, Elena. I didn't see your replies while I was busy writing mine. I find these threads require more concentration and I tend to avoid notifications.
Personal vs. group rules - I agree wholeheartedly with your comments 7&9. I think you raised an important distinction between our personal feelings and the rules of the group. It won't be feasible for us to get member consensus on every controversy. Our rule(s) need to cover a minimum we can accept and then our personal choices are layered in top of that.
Banned list - I, like you, am not willing to spend time researching authors for the purpose of a banned list. However, I am willing to review other members research that provides evidence that an author has continued to break the group rule by using their power, money and fame to oppress others. All other authors would be judged on their individual works.
Mod
Sorry, Elena. I didn't see your replies while I was busy writing mine. I find these threads require more co..."
Oh no, please! I didn't mean it that way - I'd been pretty vague in my comment #7 and I thank you for explaining about the whole Rowan VS Lynch/Bear situation to the group, many might not have been privy to it.
I'm also willing to research and validate members' heads ups about problematic authors, absolutely. But I admit to being partial to the idea of our collective work here being focused on the positive rather than on the negative (although I acknowledge we'll have to... err... get our hands dirty every now and again, so to speak?)
Then again, if members feel the need for a list of authors to be cautioned against, I'd certainly wouldn't oppose the project.
P.S. And thank you so very much for sharing that article, such an excellent read.
Mod
I'm not sure what your are "oh no'ing"? Maybe my reply wasn't clear enough in personal vs. group rules? I was attempting to agree, expand and reinforce your point. Sorry if my words didn't come across that way 😂
Mod
To your "Sorry, Elena" 😁 I didn't feel like you were talking over me at all (especially because I hardly went as in-depth as you did about the whole Bear/Rowan debacle) so no apology needed 😉
Mod
I absolutely agree with this too. If the discussions on excluding authors overtakes the suggestions of book suggested for our shelves, we'll have to have a rethink.
Moderators only have so much time for validation and we'd much rather spend it validating individual books for the bookshelf.
Edit: I'm glad you liked the article. Its not a topic I've seen (yet) in mainstream media, but it's something I've seen echoed on twitter.
I think it is okay if the author has apologized and their works/public statements have not shown any problems.That Bear/Lynch/Rowland was just so confusing. What's intriguing is that it also made several allegations came out toward some male authors on sexual assault/abuse/gaslighting/etc.
Mod
Thanks. I completely agree.
Silvana wrote: What's intriguing is that it also made several allegations came out toward some male authors on sexual assault/abuse/gaslighting..."
Good point. It sounds like there were some authors with habitual problematic behaviour that had professional impacts as a result.
Here is an example of how much work this is for anyone considering taking on author research...
I only knew that Myke Cole admited to the 2020 claims against him and was dropped by his publisher. I just googled to validate that and the first thing that came up was an article from Cole owning up to bad behaviour in 2018. Did he continue the behavior between 2018 and 2020, after his blog post? It's not always quick and easy to unravel the incidents and make fair judgments 😕
Oof, so much to catch up with here! 1. Bear/Lynch/Rowland: I accidentally went into an internet rabbit hole on the B/L/R thing this morning - yikes. Tbh, I'd be comfortable excluding Bear and Lynch from the group shelf - Bear more because of RaceFail, which it does not appear she has really learned from or apologized for, Lynch because of reports of patterns of skeevy behavior toward younger women at cons and other industry events. I am personally probably never going to read Rowland now, but I don't feel as though they've met the threshold for exclusion.
2. Harassment allegations: As Silvana mentioned, this happened in the context of larger discussions of harassment by SFF authors. I'm assuming harassment falls under the "actual harm" description in the original rule, but I'm not seeing it specifically discussed outside of the B/L/R scenario. Given the intent of the group, it seems pretty important that we do our best to exclude authors who are out there sexually harassing people, but I have a lot of uncertainty about how to draw this line.
3. Benjanun Sriduangkaew/RequiresHate: Another author who is being mentioned surrounding the B/L/R thing is this person. Most of what she did could fall under the "being mean to people on the internet" label, but the level of toxicity and actual harm she did to others makes me feel that she ought to be excluded from our shelves.
4. Banned author list: I think that if we are not going out and researching every author we add to our shelf (and I am not suggesting that we do this! I like the current stance of only banning authors if information comes to our attention), we do need to keep a banned list. If a member learns something that would prevent an author from being on our list, they should not need to wait and continually monitor the suggestions to ensure that this author isn't ever added. But I agree that this needs to not overshadow the main purpose of the group, which is identifying books that DO do better.
5. Contrition: I am also in favor of allowing authors who have apologized and made amends for past actions to be added to the shelf, with the caveat that at least some effort be made to determine how the apology was received by the people who were affected by their original actions. I would feel uncomfortable accepting an apology on someone else's behalf.
There is a tremendous megaton of information to digest here, some of which stomach-churning [not just abuse but the denials, the "I don't believe a word of this" self-righteous announcements]. I feel I've spent the last decades in a self-imposed bubble. :(Beige writes: "I'm sure there are modern works with these issues but certainly less so from the large and small publishing houses. RR, I think you possibly read more self published works than most of us, are you encountering these types of issues there?"
Yes, I do. Originally I had been considering trad-published authors but yes, right off the spin of my brain, I could toss out names of the self- or independently-published who "excel" in crossing those ethical [fill in the blank] lines and offending in their writing, even if I am unaware of their real-life personalities or activities. I tend to be a "no second chances" person and have learned by experience to be a cynic, so there are certain authors I refuse to ever read again.
The last two and a half months I've been intensely focusing on Science Fiction, secondarily on Horror, and am reading a lot of "classic" SF along with the contemporary writers. I'm discovering to my dismay that "acclaimed" authors [critically acclaimed as well as fan favorites] spewed out sexism, homophobia, SV, racism, and ad infinitum. And nobody has seemed to care: some of these guys are multiple award winners, some Grand Masters! I shouldn't be shocked...but I am. I guess I've put writers on a pedestal: " they write, therefore they are divine/perfect/without human faults."
More fool me. As The Who orated: "Won't be fooled again."
I need to step away for tonight and avoid reading any more of these reports, allegations, and denials.
Mod
@ RR - I had originally planned two weeks for this discussion, but we can take as much time as we need 😉 If you want to read someone experiencing what you are with classic SFF, I recommend this article on her experience reading the NPR best SFF of all time - voted on in 2015...
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/...
For something more uplifting, take a look at TIME magazine's top All time Fantasy published this year. Not perfect, but unrecognizable compared to the NPR list
https://time.com/collection/100-best-...
Thanks, Beige! Today I am reading Ben Bova, a "master" and new to me. Great writing but already had a couple of those examples!! I definitely need something refreshing after reading some of the links about MZB et. al. and the Rowland/Lynch/Bear situation and the subsequent taking-sides, and trying to read a confusing Medium article re Benjanun Sriduangkaew. So off to check out these links...
Kaa wrote: "with the caveat that at least some effort be made to determine how the apology was received by the people who were affected by their original actions. I would feel uncomfortable accepting an apology on someone else's behalf."
This is a very good point.
Mod
Harassment allegations: I fundamentally agree that we should ban authors who break common laws for sexual harrassment and cyberbullying. I have questioned below on how we might do this.
Banned author list: Agreed, we will maintain a list, with reasons, similar to the exclusion list. We could also have a pending list of authors that need to be researched and a list of those researched but not banned (with reasons).
Contrition: Agreed, we should factor how an author's apology and their future actions were perceived by the people affected and the SFF community at large
How do we enact this? What are your ideas?
How do we decide who to ban? Who has broken laws, apologized, changed/not changed behaviours and been granted some level of forgiveness?
Idea #1 - Members can propose authors to be considered for a ban. We ask members to volunteer to join a small group subcommittee. One member would research and a couple of other members would review their links and decide together on whether an author is added or removed to the banned author list. The team could rotate so it isn't all the same members doing the work. Also, so it isn't a full-time job, we could give the sub-teams time. Maybe 1 month to research and decide on each author?
We could publish which authors were researched and banned, not banned or removed from the banned list. Members could use this I do to decide if the author is right for them or not.
For example: 1 member could research Benjanun Sriduangkaew's apology (if there was one). I heard some rumblings? And 2 others could review. A different member would research Elizabeth Bear's behaviour and perceptions of her since she called "a truce"
Pros: authors aren't banned without some due diligence
Cons: it's time consuming, we might not have enough volunteers
Well thought out, but my question is if this potential banning process includes only authors etc. who harass/bully/transgress laws in “Real Life,” as oppose to authors who either actively promote or passively adhere to transgressive concepts in their written works? If we include the latter, I will happily volunteer to do some of the researching in proposed authors’ works.
Mod
RR I attempted to answer this in my previous reply (comment #6) to your first comment #4.
Basically, our regular book screening process will weed out problematic books. This discussion is for authors who's works aren't likely problematic but they "use their power, money and fame to oppress others".
Does this help explain the distinction?
yes, thanks! I had read your earlier comments, sorry.
Mod
No worries! I know our discussion threads contain a lot of info 😉
Mod
Additional thoughts: I've been reflecting on my proposal in comment #23 , I feel it's more of a future idea for when we eventually have more active members.
Until then, I'm drawing a blank of how we could create a banned list....with some level of due diligence. Any ideas?
Also, if we haven't yet discussed a particular aspect of authors you were hoping to see, please comment below in the next week or so.
Since we do want our bookshelves to be a resource to 'shine a light,' I hope we are agreeing not to have a shelf of bad authors. I think a folder with threads for discussions about particular authors and their bodies of work, and a summary thread for authors who fail, and perhaps a summary thread for authors who have apologized, would be sufficient.I absolutely do not want to dig into the older books and the classics. What's the point of banning Asimov, for example, because he pinched a few bottoms and didn't have a lot of diverse representation in his books? Imo, none. After all, he didn't actually write exploitive Sexual Violence. And besides, nobody reads those expecting modern enlightened attitudes.
Otoh, if we do find older/classic works that are wonderful, yes of course we should add them to our shelves. And of course the sister group WotF is helping us to find some of these.
(Btw, I thought I had a listopia that would be a good resource to start from, but it's not there. I do have one that might offer some titles for any of us to reread and consider, though: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...)
Mod
Cheryl, definitely no shelf for banned authors, that would get confusing. We will create a locked thread like our current excluded list.
I agree that the banned author list shouldn't focus on older authors, the list would be too long. Thanks for sharing your listopia. In the future, let us know if you'd like to propose any of them for our group bookshelf
You got me thinking, maybe we.....
Create a blanket statement that "this group mainly focuses on SFF books from the 21st century" with the caveat that we'd be happy to consider older works if members believe they meet our rules for content and author behaviour.
Thoughts?
Mod
Maybe, we have a similar tiered process for authors as we have decided to implement for suggested books.
1) Members can propose authors for the banned list and provide reasons/links for why they don't meet our author rules
2) Authors will go on a pending list (for all members to see)
3) Members can volunteer to validate/research the proposed banned author and share their findings. Moderators/select members review and decide to
a) place on the banned author list (with reasons)
b) place on a caution list - books are permitted on bookshelf, but have some kind of warning tag
c) not placed on any list, books stay on group shelf because the behaviour/evidence is not deemed against our rules
What do you think? The whole thing makes me squirm, but I acknowledge we can't operate this group effectively without addressing this as transparently as possible.
Beige, thank you for all your work on this. This is a huge topic and obviously hard to navigate, especially since it shouldn't be the main focus of what we are doing in the group. I have a new idea to propose to reduce the amount of time spent on this. What if we allowed members to name authors they don't think belong on the group shelves, but kept that list as "to be reviewed" until a book that was by one of those authors was suggested for the shelves? That way members could mention concerns but we wouldn't have to investigate authors who might not have any works that would qualify for the group. (I do get that it isn't ideal to keep a list of folks without requiring evidence one way or another, though.)
One comment on older authors and sexual harassment: even if there was no sexual violence of any sort in the book, it feels to me that it goes against the spirit of the group to include works by known sexual harassers.
Mod
Thank YOU Kaa 😉 As you could see, I was struggling with how we make it less onerous and you came up with a brilliant solution. As you say, this way, we're only doing the work IF it's related to our bookshelf. Love it.
And keeping a "to be reviewed" author list, I think we can find a way to position this as fair and balanced. We want our members to have a place where they can raise concerns. I hope in turn, they can understand we will proceed only when applicable and with due diligence.
Like our series pilot, I'd be comfortable trying your idea and revisiting it together in the future -- once we see the reality of the pros and cons.
Hey all, let us know what you think of Kaa's idea
I skipped a couple of the comments, but I love researching stuff!!!! And, this would be the topic to assign me too :) I can pop in more often for committee duties. I don’t have anything to add to the discussion yet because my head was just nodding along...
Kaa's idea makes sense to me, as does the focus on the 21st century unless specific older works are recommended as worthy classics.The only thing is, the 21st century is still awfully young. I, personally, am still reading lots of books from the 1990s, even '80s, as if they're contemporary. So I think about asking that we 'focus on books since 1980.' But then I think, we're just starting out now, and we're looking forward to the future, so, no, I guess 21st century does make sense. We can vet older books for our own personal triggers, after all. So, musing in public, that's the in-depth report of my thoughts. :)
Mod
Thanks again, Cheryl 😉
I'll think about this further, my earlier comment #30 about the 21st might cause more confusion than clarity... it wasn't my intention to exclude all older books, just to state our focus? Now I'm wondering what that achieves exactly.
I agree with Kaa, Cheryl, and Beige. I too am reading a lot of SF of the last quarter of the 20th Century. Even though that preceded #metoo, I find that no excuse. However...even if we focus on supporting right-thinking authors of the 21st, I still wish we could somehow have a sort of “watch out for” list to indicate authors of slightly earlier who are consistently “over the line.” I’ve spent several days thinking over the articles Beige referenced, specifically the article on acclaimed and/or wildly popular Fantasy and SFF exemplifying absolutely horrible treatment of women by authors who should KNOW better! So I guess I’ve become quite fired up on this topic.
Well, to have a focus on modern books/ authors means we don't have to fret so much about the oldest ones... that's what I think it would achieve. If there's a specific landmark date, earlier than #metoo of course, by which point authors could be expected to "know better" then I'd like to use that date. For me, it's when a woman could say that her husband raped her... as before that, he had all the rights. But it turns out there's no specific date for that, really: wikipedia says
(view spoiler)
Cheryl, I guess I'm getting a little confused about what you are suggesting. For me, it seems irrelevant for the purposes of this group whether an author "should" have known better - the group is specifically dedicated to identifying books without particular content, regardless of authorial intent in including it. For me, this should also extend to what we know of the author's behavior, especially as it regards sexual harassment. Of course these things were much more common in the past, and I don't think anyone is saying that books with this content or authors who behaved like this shouldn't be read at all, simply that they are not appropriate for this specific group.
All I'm really saying is that we shouldn't feel the need to chase down every misbehavior of every author from the distant past. I'd like to see us focus our efforts on building a bright bookshelf.
I guess I said too much in previous comments... maybe they should be disregarded.
Mod
AUTHOR RULES:
This group will exclude authors who:
1) Use their power, money and fame to oppress others
2) Have been found guilty/admitted to acts of SV or SH
Proposing books/authors to group :
Members and moderators are NOT expected to research every author's personal history before they recommend or approve books for our group bookshelf. In the future, if we learn an author has broken our author rules, their works will be removed from the bookshelf
How We Manage the Excluded Author List:
1) Members suggest authors who have broken the group's author rules. Links to articles are encouraged. These authors will be added to a pending list HERE
2) If a pending author is already on our bookshelf a Moderator/Volunteer member will conduct their own research. After, a decision will be made to:
a) Exclude the author and their works
b) Keep the author on the pending list until more information becomes available
c) Remove the author from pending list because their behaviour did not break our group rules
3) If an pending author is not on our bookshelf, they will not be researched and will remain pending until another member proposes one of their works for our bookshelf
Save Your Energy:
Most members will be recommending 21st century books for our bookshelves. Therefore, we do not require members to provide us with an exhaustive list of poorly behaved 20th century authors. Our focus remains on SFF without SV, we are not a forum for author behaviour.
EXCLUDED AUTHOR LIST:
J.K. Rowling - ongoing promotion of anti-trans feminism
Orson Scott Card- ongoing support of anti-LGBT groups
Marion Zimmer Bradley - abetting SV
Myke Cole - Admitted to multiple instances of SH
This looks great, Beige, thank you. @Cheryl: Sorry, I thought I'd already replied to your comment earlier this week. Thank you for clarifying, just wanted to be sure we were on the same page.
Looks excellent to me, and clarifying. Appreciate all the work that’s gone into this.
Mod
Mod
Let's move on to our last planned guideline discussion, Excluding YA.
Just want to say thank you for the hard work!
Our members have previously discussed excluding authors based on their behaviours and views.
We came to the agreement on a rule to exclude authors who use their power, money and fame to oppress others.
We are firm on this rule, it is not up for debate. The goal of this discussion is to ensure we understand the rule and how it will be applied. Also to determine how to best communicate it to our future members.
Our fellow member, Gretel inspired the rule with her insightful comments....