ccfinlay

You lost me at punished

« previous entry | next entry »
Aug. 9th, 2006 | 11:46 am

Bill Shunn, aka shunn, a writer I admire and a guy I like and have even roomed with, said this about the Slush Bomb:

But it sure looks to me like Gordon is being punished...

Um. A bunch of women writers, including award-winning writers, successful novelists, and Year's Best authors, as well as promising newcomers who've been honing their craft at Clarion, OWW, and elsewhere, want to send their best new stories to Gordon first. And this punishes him how?

A bunch of writers, who also happen to be readers, some of whom have given up on F&SF, and let their subscriptions lapse, and already feel alienated from the magazine, want to do something fun to reconnect with it and turn those feelings around. And this punishes him how?

Come August, Gordon will get to choose from a wider than usual selection of stories from better than average writers. There might even be more good stories than he can buy right away. And this punishes him how?

What the fuck am I missing? Why is this so complicated? Why does it deserve anything besides support, at best, or, at worst, disinterest and lack of participation? Why would anyone try to actively dissuade writers from submitting to pro market they like and want to appear in?

If there wasn't a gender context to this, it wouldn't be an issue. Nobody has every tried to talk writers out of their annual April Fool's Day Slush Bomb to Strange Horizons. From being a joke the first year, it's turned into an annual tradition that regularly supplies a couple good stories to the magazine. Many of the other stories end up being published elsewhere. Why isn't anyone rising up in rage and demanding that we stop the Strange Horizons slush bomb? It's been three or four years now, and nobody has ever suggested that we're punishing Strange Horizons by singling them out.

That's why all the anti-F&SF slush bomb protests sound to me like "Boo, ya uppity wimmen! There's no problem here. Don't do anything together. Go back to your rooms with your views and sit by yourselves and behave."

Somebody explain to me why the Strange Horizons slush bombs are okay and the F&SF slush bomb is a bad idea. What part of the middle-class educated white guy gene am I missing that all the "women, don't do this!" logic baffles me?

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {173}

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

shhhh it's a secrit

(no subject)

from: secritcrush
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:30 pm (UTC)
Link

What the fuck am I missing? Why is this so complicated?

So how does Gordon come out of this looking good? If he doesn't buy any stories some people will be annoyed. If he buys some, some people are going to say he caved to pressure. If buys some and it is a momentary blip, then other people will be annoyed that there was no long term change. (And let's be honest, the potential for this to change a lot of people's behaviours such that the slush pile takes on a dramatically different characteristic is small.) Somewhere, someone is going to be complaining about the aftermath, no matter what it is. And chances are there will be a goodly number of people who do. (Look how polarized the discussion has already been. It is unlikely to get better.)

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. But let's be honest - chances are overwhelming that the experience will be damaging to him (and by extension his magazine) in some degree. People will be unhappy with him no matter what happens. You can say it is a necessary evil to cause change.

Don't say that you are picking him a bouquet of flowers though. It's far more complicated than that.

Reply | Thread

The Pea

(no subject)

from: mekkavandexter
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:44 pm (UTC)
Link

I realize I live in a field of daisies, but I never saw this as a way to force gordon to buy or not buy wimmin writers, but rather a way to convince women writers that submitting to gordon is not as scary as everyone seems to think it is (everyone being those women that opt not to send their work)

but maybe i see it differently because I know charlie well enough to (assume to) know his intentions (more of a general statement, i would not assume to say you don't know charlie, but yanno, we know in a different way than General Publics)

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Jeremy lassen

(no subject)

from: jlassen
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:33 pm (UTC)
Link

Because all them uppity women, acting in an organized fashion, scares the shit, if only unconsciously, out of some people? Because it burst the tenative illusion that people (paricularly SF people of a certain gene rodenberry-esk stripe) hold onto dearly... that we live in classless, raceless genderless society that rewards people on merit alone? And that many people find it easier to pretend this is the case, rather than do anything about it?

(shrug.)

Or maybe I'm just projecting my own hangups onto this silly "debate." "Bomb" away, I say, because if it means a few more good stories end up at F&SF, it can only be a good thing. It's not like Gordan and his readers haven't been handling slush for a while now. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to handle it.
:)

Reply | Thread

Hannah

(no subject)

from: buymeaclue
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:34 pm (UTC)
Link

Somebody explain to me why the Strange Horizons slush bombs are okay and the F&SF slush bomb is a bad idea.

There's no implication (or explicit statement) with the SH April Fool's subs that the magazine is doing something wrong.

Er.

Which isn't to say that I think the F&SF slush bomb is a bad idea, exactly. My feelings are mixed. But that's the difference, I think, at least in part.

Reply | Thread

The Pea

(no subject)

from: mekkavandexter
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:38 pm (UTC)
Link

but i don't think the point behind the F*SF slushbomb is that the *magazine* is doing something wrong.

You can not publish stories you are not getting. I think it's a perceived wrong -- oh, F&SF does not publish women writers!!! Bad Men!
but yet we have prime examples of women writers who admit to not sending them their work...so how can F&SF publish more women writers if the women writers who are writing stories of substance and quality, are not sending their stories there?

maybe i miss the point, but yanno, that's how i see it.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Rachel Swirsky

(no subject)

from: rachel_swirsky
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:34 pm (UTC)
Link

Hey, if you're missing the "hesh up, womenz" gene, maybe you're proof of evolution in action. Sounds like a pretty good adaptation to me. ;)

Reply | Thread

The Pea

(no subject)

from: mekkavandexter
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:36 pm (UTC)
Link

people are asshats.
i think it really just comes down to that.
because really, you'd think SOMEONE would be all "why are you wasting SH's time with zombie unicorn stories!?"
but yeah, no one gives a crap about that.
it's stupid, really.
Personally I am going to punish Gordon with over 10K of girl cooties.

Reply | Thread

shhhh it's a secrit

(no subject)

from: secritcrush
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:39 pm (UTC)
Link

because really, you'd think SOMEONE would be all "why are you wasting SH's time with zombie unicorn stories!?"
but yeah, no one gives a crap about that.


The difference is the editors at SH are receptive to the April Fool's stories. They announce how funny they found it every year. If they had been annoyed the first year and we'd kept doing it, I'm sure popular perception would have been very different.

Gordon is obviously not on board with the prank. It makes a difference.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

William Shunn

(no subject)

from: shunn
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:39 pm (UTC)
Link

You lost me at punished

That's too bad, because I thought the rest of my argument was pretty worthwhile. Can we agree that we have an honest difference opinion about methodology and tactics?

Reply | Thread

sallytuppence

(no subject)

from: sallytuppence
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:57 pm (UTC)
Link

And you thought it was me who was going to beat you up!

(I'll probably have more to say about this later, after I've had a beer).

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Amanda Downum

(no subject)

from: stillsostrange
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:39 pm (UTC)
Link

Chance and Hannah's comments are right, imo.

But mostly some people live in a lightless void where there is no fun. :P

Reply | Thread

Leah Bobet

(no subject)

from: leahbobet
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 06:53 pm (UTC)
Link

Thank you. You are a Hero of the Revolution.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Comfort me with Apples

(no subject)

from: tanaise
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:44 pm (UTC)
Link

Perhaps it's that we never offically 'plan' the SH slushbomb, as it would give away the surprise if they knew what the theme would be, so it never gives people a chance to complain? Or maybe the sheer numbers that are suggested for the FSF slushbomb?

Though I'm not sure a) how many volunteered stories will *actually* be a part of the FSF slush bomb (for example, my story is not so much finished.) and b) I don't know how many of us are doing the SH slush bomb these days either, so it may actually be larger than I think.

Reply | Thread

Affinity8

(no subject)

from: affinity8
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:48 pm (UTC)
Link

Good question re Strange Horizons slush bombs! I myself never understood that, but whatever.

My favorite argument to date, btw, is that women "limit themselves" by not submitting to F & SF. It's a good thing there are smart people out there to point this out. Otherwise, I might be fooled into thinking it's a smart submission strategy to send first to people who've bought you and pay well, then to people who reject you and pay well.

Reply | Thread

Leah Bobet

(no subject)

from: leahbobet
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 06:56 pm (UTC)
Link

Heh, dunno...I consider it a duty to try and crack new markets. There are markets I can sell to, and that's good, but if I'm writing to them first I'm writing the same kind of story in some ways. Trying to crack a new market forces me to think outside of the box, stretch my brain muscles some. And it's deeply satisfying to mount another one on the trophy wall.

Maybe I just can't keep the competitive urge down. *g*

Reply | Parent | Thread

Nick Mamatas

Slush Bomb A and Slush Bomb B

from: nihilistic_kid
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:51 pm (UTC)
Link

You really can't tell the difference? I mean, I know you can't tell the difference between my point that "F&SF is a minor league men's mag, so no surprises there" and the idea that women should abandon the magazine, the strawman argument you unapologetically put in my mouth two months ago. As if the only alternatives were Charlie's Great idea and Not Submitting At All. (And I called you on this at the time. Your response was apparently to ignore me entirely.)

Moreoverr, the SH April Fool's slush bomb is, you know, a joke. Which is why it takes place on April's Fools. SH is the April's Fool in this context...the bomb itself is a (joking) punishment. Even if the joke sometimes leads to publishable stories, that doesn't invalidate the joke. This slush bomb had as its genesis your mistaken belief about gender parity in F&SF. So, the slush bomb is there for your ego: ain't Charlie right after all? Further, the claim is that F&SF isn't publishing the right stories, or the right number of stories. The April Fool's bomb doesn't implicate SH in anything.


As far as this: Why would anyone try to actively dissuade writers from submitting to pro market they like and want to appear in? uh...you really have just stepped through the looking glass and left Planet Sense behind. The alternatives aren't Follow Charlie The Leader and Never Submit. If these writers like and want to submit to F&SF, they will. If they decide that F&SF won't publish their stories (due perhaps to their gender as writers, or to the gendered nature of their stories, or to mistaken notions about either of the above, or something else), well then, pretty much by definition they have decided, by not submitting, that they do not to appear in the magazine.

And what will the slush bomb do to change that? Nothing. It may well build a sense of community, but it may also create other problems. In addition to continuing to fetishize a moribund "Big Three", let's pretend that van Gelder does want to buy a "girly story" (for lack of a better term) this month. Perhaps he'll cut his one tall-tale, his one contemp fantasy, his one big SF piece, or any of the other fairly obvious slots he tries to fill with each issue, to let sometjing "girly" in. Well, he'll have plenty to choose from. However, that also means that the chances of any of the slush bombers being the author of that story go down. So what's being demonstrated here, except the Bradbury Method in reverse: submit what is expected and what everyone else is submitting to the specifics of what a magazine seems to want, and you won't sell a story.

It's a haphazard and silly experiment, and it ultimately, to me, seems to boil down to the fact that you're shocked that a pulp digest aimed at a predominately male audience publishes mostly males (and that this somehow becomes the problem of many many women who are magically mistaken about their own experiences), and to the rather silly idea that a magazine that is losing readers at a ridiculous rate is somehow amazingly important to The Future of The Genre.

Reply | Thread

Re: Slush Bomb A and Slush Bomb B

from: ellameena
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:01 pm (UTC)
Link

And what will the slush bomb do to change that? Nothing. It may well build a sense of community, but it may also create other problems. In addition to continuing to fetishize a moribund "Big Three", let's pretend that van Gelder does want to buy a "girly story" (for lack of a better term) this month. Perhaps he'll cut his one tall-tale, his one contemp fantasy, his one big SF piece, or any of the other fairly obvious slots he tries to fill with each issue, to let sometjing "girly" in. Well, he'll have plenty to choose from.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Why do you assume that because the stories are authored by women that they will be "girly"? Why do you assume that the slush bombers are not going to send a tall tale, a contemporary fantasy, or a big SF piece? It's pretty amazing to me that you think women can't even write stories appropriate to the magazine. I went into this assuming there was no actual gender bias and that the slush bomb was just for fun--kind of a group affirmation, "go team" kind of thing. Now I'm thinking there truly are some ugly prejudices lurking out there.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)

Melissa Marr

(no subject)

from: melissa_writing
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 04:53 pm (UTC)
Link

"What part of the middle-class educated white guy gene am I missing that all the 'women, don't do this!' logic baffles me?"

Well, I believe the problem is that you are intelligent & acting on it. Sometimes that frightens people. Maybe if you offered links to support groups for the the easily intimidated . . .

Seriously, egalitarian thoughts are difficult for some people, and in my experience, seeing them in a man sometimes is even more disconcerting for the easily startled.

Don't stress on it, Charlie. Lots of folks out here think your idea is pretty cool. Those that don't? Well, many of them still can disagree without feeling uncomfortable. The rest? Well, we just need to figure out how to get whatever EXTRA gene you have (b/c it's extra that you have not a lack) into their genetic soup.

IMO, GVG is lucky to get a plethora of texts from talented women. Just as he would be lucky to get a huge burst of texts from talented ____ (fill in w. your trait of choice). It's all cool.

Maybe if some of them get through, I'll actually buy a few issues again.

Melissa

Reply | Thread

Kelly

(no subject)

from: retrobabble
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:01 pm (UTC)
Link

Hey, where's my memo that this was a Big Deal?

Oh, yeah. Tossed it out.

Guess I'll just have to send my story along because it amuses me to do so.

Reply | Thread

stillnotbored

(no subject)

from: stillnotbored
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:01 pm (UTC)
Link

Dear Charlie,

Welcome to Introduction to Sexism 101. Some of us have been enrolled in this course our entire lives, while others, men and women, skip it entirely. I've never figured out if they are willfully blind to this or so insulated in their own little world they just don't see it. This goes double for women who function in what used to be thought of exclusively as a 'man's job'.

The name of the course has changed over the years. It used to be called Keep Em Barefoot and Pregnant. Later it was known as The Glass Ceiling or alternately as Let Them Think They've Made Progress, But It's All An Illusion.

These days the curricula is much more subtle than it used to be, but the basic core is still the same. Deny the problem exists, scorn those who point out the emperor still has no clothes, and do all you can to keep all the marbles for yourself.

There is zero logic involved in this course, based as it is in fear and cast in concrete attitudes. Scoring is strictly on a you get it or you don't pass/fail system.

Reply | Thread

bram452

(no subject)

from: bram452
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 08:16 pm (UTC)
Link

Hey. So since I came into the conversation late and you were kind enough to put me in the picture before, let me just ask you: How much do you feel like the slush bomb thing is an act of protest?

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Kelsey Johnson Defatte

(no subject)

from: cocoskeeper
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:10 pm (UTC)
Link

An editor "bombed" with QUALITY work isn't being punished ANY way you look at it.

Reply | Thread

Kelsey Johnson Defatte

(no subject)

from: cocoskeeper
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:12 pm (UTC)
Link

Oh.

And although I in no way can guarantee the Slush Bomb is filled with quality work, something tells me that those who are participating, take this "bomb" of submissions very seriously and do NOT want to look like fools in the process. Therefore, I honestly believe these folks are sending this editor quality work.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Jim C. Hines

(no subject)

from: jimhines
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:29 pm (UTC)
Link

"Somebody explain to me why the Strange Horizons slush bombs are okay and the F&SF slush bomb is a bad idea. What part of the middle-class educated white guy gene am I missing that all the "women, don't do this!" logic baffles me?"

First of all, am I allowed to disagree with you without immediately being pounced upon and told I'm an asshat, living in a lightless void, easily intimidated, sexist, and whatever other insults pop up between now and the time I finish the comment? I understand you're frustrated, but a fair amount of the pile-on has been pretty damn insulting to anyone who might feel troubled by what you're doing.

Personally, I don't see this as punishing Gordon. It's his job to edit the magazine, and JJA's job to read slush. You're giving them a fractionally greater number to choose from. I see that as a good thing.

FSF was singled out because of the perception that they buy more stories from men than from women. I've seen this debated, including some numbers suggesting they actually buy a proportionally greater number of stories from women, but that women massively undersubmit to this particular magazine. I'm not sure what point or long-term effect this slush bomb will have, and I'm a bit dubious as to how effective it will be, but I don't think it's hurting FSF, GVG, or JJA. And it got people talking, which I think is generally a good thing. (In some cases, it even got people listening instead of automatically bashing anyone who disagrees with them, based on a simplistic perception of "the other side's" arguments.)

I said before that I thought it was problematic to have the middle-class educated white guy rallying the women. Is it wrong for you to try to address a problem you see? Not at all. But you are the leader here, the coach calling the play and organizing the women to carry it out. This is going to raise questions for some folks. Among other things, it looks a little like the middle-class educated white guy (MCEWG) is coming to rescue the women writers.

Now the fact is, you're in a position with some power and influence. You're a damn good writer, you've got an in with FSF, and a lot of people respect you. And I'm not saying someone in a position of power shouldn't use that to help others, just because the other happens to be in a traditionally less privileged position.

In this case, you could have used that power to ask folks what they wanted to do. Start a discussion, get people thinking and debating and throwing out ideas. Maybe it would have been a slush bomb. Maybe it would have been "Submit under an androgynous pen name" month. Maybe it would have been a letter-writing campaign to FSF, I don't know. But instead, you said, "This is what I think we should do," and people hopped on board with you.

As for this bomb vs. the SH one, the goals are completely different. The SH bomb is an April Fool's day "joke," a tradition started by a bunch of people who wanted to have fun. And while some folks are having fun with the FSF bomb, that doesn't seem to be the goal. The goals, as I understand them, are to increase female submissions to FSF, to undo the alienation felt by female writers/readers in regards to FSF, and from your early posts, to establish whether there really is a gender bias from the FSF editors.

I don't know whether or not this will work. I think there might be better ways to go about it. I think there could be other ways to frame the whole discussion, for that matter. I don't believe you're hurting anything, but I do think there's a pretty clear difference between this and the SH bomb.

Reply | Thread

squirrel_monkey

(no subject)

from: squirrel_monkey
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:41 pm (UTC)
Link

It didn't bother me in the beginning; I felt very enthusiastic about fun of 100 girls submitting together. Now, I'm a bit torn as more adversarial language crept in, and the whole thing became Charle vs Gordon vs Bill.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Expand

Jim C. Hines

(no subject)

from: jimhines
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:38 pm (UTC)
Link

Also, I'm still waiting for a response to my proposed alternative, codenamed "Operation Inky Buttocks."

Reply | Thread

it's a great life, if you don't weaken

(no subject)

from: matociquala
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:40 pm (UTC)
Link

Waittaminnit.

We're not punishing Strange Horizons?

Oh, man, I'm so outta here....

Reply | Thread

Jim C. Hines

(no subject)

from: jimhines
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:46 pm (UTC)
Link

Forget Strange Horizons. Want to help me rally a bunch of artists to bomb Realms of Fantasy with illustrations of scantily clad men?

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

(no subject)

from: ex_filmmaker362
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:49 pm (UTC)
Link

I just want to say you seem well-intentioned and mean well with this whole Slush Bomb (say, have you gotten that phrase trade-marked yet?) thing.

But aren't you being condescending to poor Gordon? I mean, surely he must appreciate woman writers even if he doesn't like to publish them.

Reply | Thread

C. C. Finlay

(no subject)

from: ccfinlay
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 06:08 pm (UTC)
Link

Ha! When I come looking for you, if you're on the beach I may forget the rest of it.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

mallory_blog

(no subject)

from: mallory_blog
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:49 pm (UTC)
Link

I do believe the 'fear of rejection' is a big monster for many people - it is connected to many peoples 'abandonment issues' and I do think a lot of personal rhetoric is generated as people try to avoid dealing with underlying issues. To be clear, I think some people are attracted to being a writer in order to have greater visibility of unhealed (rejection) wounding from their childhood. The one thing that writing can guarantee is experiences of rejection. It also offers the opportunity for external validation. These conjoined issues can drive a person pretty hard. However, if a person isn't doing their work (internally) then receiving rejections is PERSONAL and painful rather than a feature of the business - this would lead to avoidant behaviors attached to justification dialogue.

(trying to be a bit less vague) The upshot of this is that submission with a strong likelihood of rejection makes a person feel unsafe, like they are unworthy in some intimate way - this feels painful.

The appearance of bias becomes useful in this case - it presents a pre-existing exit strategy from the (known) rejection or it allows the person to avoid the actual rejection even though all they have done is adopt the rejection and reject themselves in advance (they become their own monster.) At the very least, for a woman, they are then not being rejected by a man - but by themselves - which is common enough since self abandonment, self betrayal are epidemic within the female culture in America at this point in history.

So - I don't know if GVG has a bias.
I know I can't sell a story if he doesn't read it - EVER!
Bottom line - I will send to GVG until he retires from a pro-market somewhere in the far distant future.
Until then, he's the target market so he gets my submissions.
The answer is yes, I have a story going into the bomb.

Thank YOU for being instrumental in generating this opportunity of visibility for so very many people.

Reply | Thread

pjthompson

(no subject)

from: pjthompson
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 05:55 pm (UTC)
Link

You're doing a good thing, Charlie. I'm doing the bomb because it's a fun idea and gets me off my butt and submitting something. It's a great excuse to rally round. Not because I think it will change anything or because I want to punish anyone, but because it's fun and motivating. And it doesn't matter that I probably won't sell to FSF. The point is that I'm doing it. And it's fun. Did I mention that it's fun?

Reply | Thread

Kelly

(no subject)

from: retrobabble
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 06:04 pm (UTC)
Link

Yay, fun!

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Hilary Moon Murphy

(no subject)

from: hilarymoonmurph
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 06:04 pm (UTC)
Link

Charlie --

Take a deep breath. This is okay. Really! I'm in it for the fun, and for the deadline to finish a story.

Jim --

Love the idea of bombing Realms with naked men pictures.

Everyone --

Can we tone down the rhetoric for a few minutes? Those that want to bomb, should bomb. Those who don't, should not. We all have different opinions.

Thank you!

Hmm

Reply | Thread

Marissa Lingen

(no subject)

from: mrissa
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 06:33 pm (UTC)
Link

Here is my deep and meaningful concern about the slush bomb: it may mean that JJA takes more than ten days to reject my next story, due to backlog of work. He might be so inundated that it would take him as much as a whole fortnight.

Sure, go on ahead and send him your stories -- if you can live with that possibility on your consciences. Don't think of my feelings. That's all right. I don't mind.

*sniff*

Reply | Thread

Kelly

(no subject)

from: retrobabble
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 06:43 pm (UTC)
Link

Oh, dear. Let me think on it. *no pause* Woo, ok. Fits just fine on my conscience. Anyone else?

(Was that my outside voice?)

Reply | Parent | Thread

charmingbillie

(no subject)

from: charmingbillie
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 07:01 pm (UTC)
Link

As with the last time this discussion went down I am deeply amused by the number of men telling the wimmins what kinds of collective action would be acceptable. Also, the vast majority of 'Charlie means well but too bad he's not a woman' are also coming from men.

Charlie made a suggestion. All the wimmins could have ignored it. Many of them thought it was a good idea. Some of them have different ideas about why it's a good idea. It will change the world or not change the world or get more stories out there or piss someone off or make someone happy or not do much of anything. Because that's the way things work.

(and someday when I have my quotes and my brain in the same room, I'll post something about how social and organizational structures can maintain bias even when everyone involved is a 'good guy'...or gal)

Reply | Thread

sallytuppence

(no subject)

from: sallytuppence
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 07:39 pm (UTC)
Link

You so totally rock.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: shawn_scarber
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 07:07 pm (UTC)
Link

For the record, I think this is a great idea, and I don't see it as a form of punishment. I try to put myself in Gordon's place and all I can think is how cool it would be to get a ton of great stories in one concerted effort.

Reply | Thread

bram452

My $.02

from: bram452
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 08:12 pm (UTC)
Link

To the degree that the slush bomb is a great jape, I think the idea kicks ass. It gets folks (in this case women) to send GVG a bunch of stories. He wins. It movitvates folks (in this case woman) to keep in the publishing game. They win. It's light-hearted, constructive, non-confrontational (ok, *was* non-confrontational), and inclusive. Kick ass.

To the degree that it's a litmus test on the acceptability of GVG's editorial decisions, it's a little more problematic. It seems like the thing is fishtailing a little from group activity into group protest, with the change in rhetoric that implies. The SH april fool's bomb is't linked to charges of sexism. The fact that there is a political and social issue in play here does up the stakes.

So I'm in favor of droppin' the bomb. And I'm interested in seein' how folks interpret the results.

On a side note, I would pay money to see a Nick Mamatas / S. M. Stirling rhetorical cage match. Seriously.

Reply | Thread

Re: My $.02

from: anonymous
date: Aug. 9th, 2006 08:38 pm (UTC)
Link

FWIW, I think Eeevil Forces (TM) are trying to derail it from the group activity track to the group protest track, and we're trying to keep that from happening. That's a train wreck that wouldn't be nearly as much fun to watch as Nick and Stirling.

law

Reply | Parent | Thread