HUGO AWARD-WINNING SCIENCE FICTION & FANTASY MAGAZINE
Cavemen Discovered in the 21st Century
I've recently been following a disturbing discussion that is taking place on a major genre magazine's forum. It all started when Jonathan Strahan, a respected anthologist, publicly apologized for not including enough women in Eclipse 2, an anthology to be published later this year. In the days prior, there had been considerable outcry about this from both women and men. Under ordinary circumstances, his table of contents wouldn't have attracted much attention, but with the prior book in this series, the publisher, Night Shade Books, featured only male names on the cover despite the book's relatively gender-balanced table of contents. That decision led to months of discussion, culminating with a panel at Wiscon, a feminist science fiction convention. It was at that panel that the publisher promised to right that wrong with the cover of the next volume. A few weeks later, the anthologist announced a nearly all-male table of contents.
Let's jump back to today. At the time I'm writing this, there are nine pages of chatter about this apology in a thread called "Strahan caves to the PC Nazi Brigade", almost all of it by men who feel he should have put those women in their place. After all, they want the "best stories" and if that means cavemen only, well God Bless America! We don't want no stink'in emotional air-headed girl cootie drivel in our science fiction!
Dear lord, people like that do exist. I think I must live a sheltered life or perhaps I just hang out with a better quality of people. No one I know ever behaves like that. Seeing this gives me a much better appreciation of what women and minority authors have to put up with.
Do anthologists and publishers have an obligation to women and minorities? Absolutely. Does that mean taking lesser quality stories based on race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity? Absolutely not. This is about being a market that is friendly. If all you get are stories from white men, maybe you need to do some outreach and get a more diverse body of people submitting stories to you. Or perhaps you've done something to scare them away. If you were or are a minority, would you send a story to a market that supports or promotes individuals like some of those on that forum?
One argument I see presented is that a more diverse pool of writers will change the personality of the publication. It's ironic that a forward-looking genre can sometimes be so rooted in its ways. "But you might scare away the readers!" Wake up. The readers are already leaving. Yes, you might upset a few die-hard white supremacists, but a publication that represents a more diverse body of people may just appeal to a more diverse body of people. You might actually attract more readers. The fact of the matter is that the editors are responsible for the personality of a publication. Just because they've made an effort to attract a more diverse author pool does not mean that that publication will suddenly dip in quality and become a "market for women and homosexuals." It means that they actually are trying to find the "best stories."
Not everyone taking part in that discussion is a caveman. On occasion, there are much more enlightened viewpoints being represented, but neither side is likely to prove the other wrong. Like politics and religion, this is something that people cling to with a passion. Our worldviews demand that we can't be wrong. Was that anthologist wrong to apologize? I don't think so. There was an expectation of both him and his publisher, and that expectation was not met.
What's your opinion? Was he right to apologize? Can a magazine or anthology embrace diversity without harming itself? Who are some of the authors that prove your point? Do you pay attention to the table of contents when selecting what you'll buy?
Please Support This Month's Sponsors
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Neil Clarke is the editor of Clarkesworld Magazine, owner of Wyrm Publishing and a 2013 Hugo Nominee for Best Editor (short form). He currently lives in NJ with his wife and two children.
WEBSITE
Also by this Author
PURCHASE THIS ISSUE:
ISSN 1937-7843 Clarkesworld Magazine © 2013 Wyrm Publishing. Robot illustration by Serj Iulian.
J. T. Glover wrote on July 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am:
Nice essay (editorial?), to which I responded on my journal.
I generally take a gander at TOCs to see if there's anyone I recognize, but not for reasons other than that. If the names are overwhelmingly characteristic of one sex, race, ethnicity, etc., it doesn't tend to impact my level of interest -- though I know that's not true for everyone.
Embracing diversity takes many forms. I think it's great, so long as it results in a strong, diverse group of stories. I know there are many factors that go into selection for anthologies or issues, and that it's worth listening to historically underrepresented voices, but I'd hate to see SF/F go down the rabbit hole of demographically-oriented anthologies full of bad stories. And yes, that includes the straight white male demographic...
I've read anthologies of poetry and literary fiction filled solely by authors from X group and been appalled at the low quality of work included, presumably for the sake of solidarity. Obviously SF authors interested in politics and politics in writing are going to do what they do, but as a reader, I like that SF isn't generally as politicized as literary fiction.
Joe Sherry wrote on July 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm:
I saw that thread at Asimov's when Nick Mamatas pointed it out. I was appalled, and was surprised to see that conversation taking place in what, one might otherwise assume, should be a progressive genre.
I agree with your statement that editors shouldn't take lesser stories, but that they should also try to embrace diversity. If women are half the population of America (purposefully limiting the conversation here), ignoring them or slighting them seems like it would hurt sales more than help them.
If we consider exactly what part of the American population IS white and male, I doubt it makes up a full majority. So why should the stories?
I don't think, as was contended in that Asimov's thread, that including women and / or homosexuals makes a market necessarily FOR women and homosexuals (of either gender), but rather makes the market one that INCLUDES a fuller range of human experience.
Dave Truesdale's comments, in particular, disturbed me. I just don't think "picking the best story" is as simple as he makes it sound or as blind as he makes it sound.
(that's not meant to be a personal attack or Truesdale, just responding to some of what he said on the first page of the thread)
Jenner Nutral wrote on July 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm:
If you say one thing and then do another, unintentionally or otherwise, an apology might be expected for being misleading. Mr./Dr. Strahan was therefore right to do so, but it sounds to me like his intention was misinterpreted by some who misinterpret things on a regular basis.
It would make me uncomfortable to be an editor with a responsibility other than to find the best content; I would be second-guessing myself.
So a hypothetical: if, after assembling a table of contents, you thought "gee, not enough stories by cephalopods here", would you then sift through stories by 'pods you passed on before, take a few out of the pile and slot them in? How would you choose which non-pod stories to take out? Would you feel like you were serving your readership to he best of your ability?
As a reader, it gets easier. Generally, I don't care, but I'm less likely to pick up anything that promotes itself as "(new) XYZ voices in fiction".
Joe Sherry wrote on July 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm:
But what does it mean to "find the best content"? How do you know you're doing enough, as an editor, to find the best content?
Perhaps if you see that you don't have enough cephalopod written stories you don't go back through the rejection pile, but perhaps try (this time or next time) to solicit from more cephalopods, both well known cephalopods as well as perhaps an open call to say "hey, I'd like some great cephalopod stories".
I think, and obviously this is just my opinion, that an editor should constantly evaluate whether they are finding the best content and what they can do to find better content since if the world is half cephalopod, surely non pods can't be writing all the best stories.
Neil Clarke wrote on July 4th, 2008 at 1:54 am:
I wasn't at the Wiscon panel where the promises were made, but I do know people who were there and have read the accounts of others from both sides of the issue. Everyone seems to agree that a promise was made. As such, it seems pretty clear that the apology was warranted.
As for the cephalopods, you seem to think someone male would have been passed over in the process of finding more stories from female. This is from Jonathan's apology:
"Writers dropped out as always happens (and this is no reflection on them), and I wasn’t paying attention to gender balance. More women happened to drop out than men, and when I went to solicit stories close to the deadline I went to writers I felt I could impose on, that I had a relationship with, and they were all male."
In other words, to fill the vacancies made by the women who dropped out, he turned to men. No one is saying he should have only picked women to replace those slots. What they are saying is that he should have at least given them the chance, especially considering the expectations his publisher gave people for this volume.
As for the hypothetical, not noticing until the table of contents is complete is a mistake in itself. During the process, if you notice that you're not getting enough good stories from cephalopods, then you reach out and attempt to do something about it. Make an effort if you really want to find the "best" stories. Even if you don't achieve a nice balance this time around, an honest effort goes a long way towards helping you next time.
You have some additional flexibility with a magazine or anthology series. If you made that mistake with the contents, you could always move stories to the next issue or book. It happens.
Quality does not have to be sacrificed. I don't know why people keep assuming it will.
Blue Tyson wrote on July 5th, 2008 at 4:05 am:
Editors are certainly short a hell of a lot of Indians, speaking of places where there should be a lot of people fluent in English.
Are they biased to Americans (male or female)?
Not a lot of mention of that given most of the people going to said conventions are American, or live there.
Neil (Admin) wrote on July 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am:
Reaching an international pool of authors is a lot harder. I think online publications (and publications that take e-subs) have a slight advantage, on a logistical level, in this department.
Interesting that you should mention India. A few years ago, when I was still running the bookstore, I asked one of my Indian customers what the market was like there. I was told that it was virtually non-existent and the genre as a whole was looked down upon. This was confirmed by several Indian students at the university I worked at at the time. Things change though, so maybe it's better now.
I can't speak for other publications, but I know we're receiving submissions from all over the world. Most of our authors are American, but we've published stories from the Philippines, Russia, UK, Australia, Canada, Italy and others. It's hardly representative of global demographics, but I think we're moving in the right direction. Personally, I'd love to bring in translators and make Clarkesworld available in multiple languages. You can bet that would increase the number of foreign submissions. Unfortunately, it's a bit beyond our resources at the moment.
Blue Tyson wrote on July 5th, 2008 at 10:51 pm:
Sure, wouldn't be expecting translations.
I'd say you are likely right on the taking email submissions front. It wouldn't be economically viable for people to send lots of stories by unreliable snail-mail from many countries (and even nz and oz, too, for some, even though your more affluent wealthy countries).
The Phillipines and Ukraine ones were a nice surprise, certainly, and the Quaglia team-ups are funny.
Jenn wrote on July 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm:
When I was a kid, my folks used to joke about watching the Jetsons. "Look at that, everyone lives above the ground and there are no black folks. Are they trying to tell us something?" Maybe they were. I've been getting into science fiction more seriously of late, as in reading the magazines and following the field, and I must admit a kind of shock at what is supposed to be about the future being so "primitive." Even the TV shows Battlestar Galactica seem to have people of color way off to the margins. The stories are good, but it is very scary to depict a future and/or universe where people of color dare not tread. SciFi authors are the ones that are supposed to be preparing us for what is to come. How are we going to handle what's "out there" if we can't handle what's right here on Earth? It's sad and disappointing. So my answer to your question is, undoubtedly, yes, magazines and anthologies HAVE to embrace the many peoples and cultures that are available in this world. The implication that well-written stories cannot be found from diverse peoples is racist and sexist on its face. I'm glad to see that this magazine and a few others are enlightened enough to see that. Let evolution take care of the knuckle-draggers.
Jenner Nutral wrote on July 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm:
Well, at least we know why I'm not an editor of a fine online publication, but rather a purveyor of tepid analogies. I guess if a I were an editor I would take the points made here and use them to make my publication more representative.
As for BSG, I've noticed that the president is a woman and the Admiral of the fleet is Hispanic. I've noticed an Asian woman in a key role as well. All in all, fairly diverse, except that no one is black.
In the new series, the two black characters I can recall seeing are a pilot betrayed by Adama and a gangster. Strange, since the original series had two black characters, one who is now (spoiler alert) the aforementioned Asian woman, while the other is a hard-drinking Irishman (or close enough to count).
An oversight in casting? Certainly, though I'm sure one falling under the terms of Hanlon's razor.
Diversity means more now than it did in the past, and its meaning will continue to expand. This is a good thing, but it means occasional omissions will occur.
Joe Sherry wrote on July 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm:
Jenner: Not to really make this a BSG thread, but Dualla is black. She's something like the senior communications officer and was, briefly, married to Lee Adama. She had a larger face presence earlier in the series.
Key Role? Well, yes in terms of being a black woman with an important role in the command room. Key Role on the show? Not really. She's in the opening credits, anyway.
I don't remember any others.
Oh, and Tory (now a prominent character, to not spoil anything) is of Indian descent.
Blue Tyson wrote on July 7th, 2008 at 10:02 pm:
And almost all American, Lucy Lawless and the odd Canadian aside.
Blue Tyson wrote on July 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm:
As far as how they present them is what I mean, e.g. giving them American accents etc, obviously all the actors aren't.
Joe Sherry wrote on July 7th, 2008 at 10:08 pm:
BT:
If you look at the Wikipedia page (bastion of Accuracy, I know), the Main Characters are 3 Americans, 2 Brits, 1 Canadian, and an American / Canadian Mix (Grace Park)
The supporting cast: Mostly Canadian.
The Recurring cast: still, mostly Canadian.
Given that this is a show created and shot on this side of the pond, primarily for an English speaking / North American audience, it kind of makes sense.
Jenner Nutral wrote on July 9th, 2008 at 9:05 pm:
I apologize for steering this thread off topic and my lack of BSG voodoo.
Question for Mr. Clarke: Do you go about ensuring (encouraging?) balance for this publication? Do you actively solicit submissions? My feeling is that this is unnecessary, and that you get a fairly gender-balanced slush pile.
I'll hang up and listen to your comments...
Neil Clarke wrote on July 11th, 2008 at 10:08 am:
I have two editors. One solicits stories from people we'd like to see in the magazine and the other selects stories from slush. If the slush skews one way or the other, we can easily compensate without sacrificing the quality we're looking for.
It also helps to have a staff that is very aware of the issue. In choosing a replacement for Nick (who, sadly, is leaving us for bigger and better things), I'll be paying very close attention to that.
Jenn wrote on July 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pm:
"Dear lord, people like that do exist. I think I must live a sheltered life or perhaps I just hang out with a better quality of people."
Oh, yeah, they are out there! Since this article was posted even more of this kinda stuff in the SciFi world has come out:
The Helix magazine Flap
and Orson Scott Card comes out as a homophobe.
A.R.Yngve wrote on August 10th, 2008 at 5:38 am:
I keep thinking of "James Tiptree, Jr.", who was really Alice Sheldon under a pseudonym. Virtually everyone recognizes Tiptree/Sheldon as one of the truly great SF writers. But would it have mattered if her true name had never been revealed?
:-S
Here's an idea:
A magazine -- say, Clarkesworld -- could publish an entire issue dedicated to "hidden author gender". All stories would use author pseudonyms with first-name initials like "J.R.R. Jones", and all fiction submissions would be required to use first-name initials (to test the editorial gender-neutrality).
(FYI, I'm male. ;-))
Neil Clarke wrote on August 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm:
Interesting idea, but I'm not sure that could work here. We only publish two stories per issue and one of those is solicited. A single issue, even two or three, wouldn't be a statistically valid sample size.