(1) VITA BREVIS. Arnie Fenner’s tribute at Muddy Colors to artists and cartoonists who passed in 2015 is excellent.
(2) DOCTOR STRANGE. “First Look at Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange” at Yahoo! Movies.
The first official glimpse of Benedict Cumberbatch as Marvel hero Doctor Strange graces the new cover of Entertainment Weekly, and the biggest revelation is that he probably isn’t spending much time in the makeup chair. The actor sports facial hair and a cloak that will be familiar to comic-book fans, as well as Strange’s powerful amulet, the Eye of Agamotto.
(3) DARTH ZIPPO. “Watch This Homemade, Gas-Powered Lightsaber Destroy Things” at Popular Science.
The entire thing was built and modified from existing components, using a replica Skywalker lightsaber shell, a section from a turkey marinade injector, and several 3D printed parts to make it all work together. The result is a finished product by a Youtube craftsman that is neither as clumsy or random as a blaster.
(4) PALMER AND SHAVER. “When Good Science Fiction Fans Go Bad” is a companion article to Wired’s “Geeks Guide To The Galaxy” podcast which interviewed Ray Palmer’s biographer and learned about the Shaver Mystery.
Author Fred Nadis relates the strange story of Palmer in his recent biography The Man From Mars, which describes how Hugo Gernsback, founder of the first pulp science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories, helped inspire his readers to create a better future.
“He saw [science fiction] in very practical terms of shaping the future,” Nadis says in Episode 182 of the Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy podcast. “Almost a visionary experience of imagining the future and new technologies and what they could do, but he also felt like we had to spread this faith.”
If you’re interested in comparing viewpoints, here’s a link to the post I wrote about fandom’s response to Richard Shaver.
(5) WRITING NEUROMANCER. William Gibson’s 2014 piece for The Guardian, “How I wrote Neuromancer” was news to me, and perhaps will be to you.
On the basis of a few more Omni sales, I was approached by the late Terry Carr, an established SF anthologist. Terry had, once previously, commissioned a limited series of first novels for Ace Books – his Ace SF Specials. Now he was doing it again, and would I care to write one? Of course, I said, in that moment utterly and indescribably terrified, something I remained for the next 18 months or so, when, well out of my one-year contract, I turned in the manuscript.
I was late because I had so very little idea of how to write a novel, but assumed that this might well be my first and last shot at doing so. Whatever else might happen, I doubted anyone would ever again offer me money up front for an unwritten novel. This was to be a paperback original, for a very modest advance. My fantasy of success, then, was that my book, once it had been met with the hostile or indifferent stares I expected, would go out of print. Then, yellowing fragrantly on the SF shelves of secondhand book shops, it might voyage forward, up the time-stream, into some vaguely distant era in which a tiny coterie of esoterics, in London perhaps, or Paris, would seize upon it, however languidly, as perhaps a somewhat good late echo of Bester, Delany or another of the writers I’d pasted, as it were, on the inside of my authorial windshield. And that, I assured myself, sweating metaphorical bullets daily in front of my Hermes 2000 manual portable, would almost certainly be that.
(6) INTERNET TAR. Ursula K. Le Guin tells readers at Book View Café she never said it:
The vapid statement “the creative adult is the child who survived” is currently being attributed to me by something called Aiga —
https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/design-quote-creative-adult-is-child-who-survived-ursula-le-guin/
…Meelis pointed out this sentence in the 1974 essay “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” (reprinted in the collection The Language of the Night):
I believe that maturity is not an outgrowing, but a growing up: that an adult is not a dead child, but a child who survived.
Nothing about “creativity” whatever. I just said a grown-up is somebody who lived through childhood — a child who survived….
It is high time that this sentence, “The creative adult is the child who has survived,” be attributed to its originator, Prof. Julian F. Fleron.
If he did not originate it, and wishes to be freed from the onus of supposedly having done so, that’s up to him or to those who wish to preserve his good name. I just wish, oh how I wish! that he hadn’t stuck me with the damn thing.
(7) SCHOEN. Lawrence M. Schoen is interviewed by Sara Stamey at Book View Café.
Can you tell us about your small press, Paper Golem, which aims to introduce readers to fresh new authors? Any advice for those interested in setting up a small press?
More than a decade ago, one of my graduate students lured me away from academia to come work for him in the private sector as the Director of Research at the medical center where he was CEO. The result was fewer work hours and more money. I mention this because it meant that I was in a position to start a small press, going into the venture not with an eye toward making a fortune (stop laughing!) but rather the more modest goal of breaking even and using the press to “pay it forward.”
(8) STRAUB SELLS HOUSE. “Horror Author’s Not-Scary UWS Townhouse Sells for $7M” reports NY Curbed.
Despite the nature of author Peter Straub‘s work—he’s a horror author known for Ghost Story, The Throat, and his collaborations with Stephen King—his former Upper West Side townhouse is very much not terrifying. The gorgeous home, located on West 85th Street, was built in the 1880s and has some of its original details, including a stained-glass panel over the staircase and six fireplaces. It went on the market back in April, but unsurprisingly went quickly; according to StreetEasy, it sold at the beginning of the month, for slightly under its original $7.8 million asking price. (h/t 6sqft) Coincidentally, Straub’s daughter Emma, an author herself, recently sold her equally gorgeous townhouse in Prospect Lefferts Gardens.
Andrew Porter commented, “This is very disturbing news. I’ve known Straub for decades. He recently decided not to attend the World Fantasy Convention, held the beginning of November in Saratoga Springs NY, because of health concerns. I wonder if the effort of climbing up and down all those stairs finally got to be too much for him.”
(9) COINCIDENCE. Hundreds of readers “liked” the mainstream political graphic David Gerrold posted on Facebook but it seems an ill-considered choice by someone who recently hoped to convince people an asterisk had another meaning than ASSH*LE.
(10) MYTHBUSTER. Sarah A. Hoyt’s discussion of “The Myths of Collapse” is a good antidote to misinterpretations of history that are fairly common in the backstory of created worlds, however, it is also intended as political advice, and while fairly mild as such YMMV.
1 Myth one — collapse creates a tabula rasa, upon which a completely different society can be built. Honestly, I think this comes from the teachings on the collapse of Rome and the truly execrable way the middle ages are taught.
First of all, once you poke closer, Rome only sort of collapsed. Depending on the place you lived in, your life might not have changed much between the end of the empire and the next few centuries. I come from a place where it’s more like Rome got a name change and went underground. In both the good and the bad, Portugal is still Rome, just Rome as you’d expect after 19 centuries of history or so.
Second the society that was rebuilt wasn’t brand new and tabula rasa but partook both of the empire and the incredible complexity of what happened during collapse.
(11) TODAY IN HISTORY
- December 28, 1895 – First commercial movie screened.
In 1894, Antoine Lumiere, the father of Auguste (1862-1954) and Louis (1864-1948), saw a demonstration of Edison’s Kinetoscope. The elder Lumiere was impressed, but reportedly told his sons, who ran a successful photographic plate factory in Lyon, France, that they could come up with something better. Louis Lumiere’s Cinematographe, which was patented in 1895, was a combination movie camera and projector that could display moving images on a screen for an audience. The Cinematographe was also smaller, lighter and used less film than Edison’s technology.
(12) TODAY’S BIRTHDAY BOY
- Born December 28, 1922 — Stan Lee
(13) SF-LOVERS. “Scientists on their favourite science fiction”:
We invited scientists to highlight their favourite science fiction novel or film and tell us what it was that captivated their imagination – and, for some, how it started their career….
Matthew Browne, social scientist, CQUniversity
Consider Phlebas – Iain M. Banks
I love a lot of science fiction, but Iain M. Banks’ classic space-opera Consider Phlebas is a special favourite.
Banks describes the “Culture”, a diverse, anarchic, utopian and galaxy-spanning post-scarcity society. The Culture is a hybrid of enhanced and altered humanoids and artificial intelligences, which range from rather dull to almost godlike in their capabilities….
Perhaps the best thing about Consider Phlebas (apart from the wonderfully irreverent ship names the Minds give themselves) is the fact that a story from this conflict is told from the perspective of an Indiran agent, who despises the Culture and everything it stands for.
My own take on the book is as an ode to progressive technological humanism, and the astute reader will find many parallels to contemporary political and cultural issues.
(14) THE CLIPULARITY. The December 28 Washington Post has a lengthy article by Joel Achenbach about whether robots will kill us all once AI becomes smarter than people. He references Isaac Asimov and Vernor Vinge and discusses the nightmare scenario developed by Nick Bostrom about whether a machine programmed to make something (like paper clips) Goes Amok and starts ransacking the world for resources to make paper clips, destroying everything that gets in its way.
People will tell you that even Stephen Hawking is worried about it. And Bill Gates. And that Elon Musk gave $10 million for research on how to keep machine intelligence under control. All that is true.
How this came about is as much a story about media relations as it is about technological change. The machines are not on the verge of taking over. This is a topic rife with speculation and perhaps a whiff of hysteria.
But the discussion reflects a broader truth: We live in an age in which machine intelligence has become a part of daily life. Computers fly planes and soon will drive cars. Computer algorithms anticipate our needs and decide which advertisements to show us. Machines create news stories without human intervention. Machines can recognize your face in a crowd.
New technologies — including genetic engineering and nanotechnology — are cascading upon one another and converging. We don’t know how this will play out. But some of the most serious thinkers on Earth worry about potential hazards — and wonder whether we remain fully in control of our inventions.
(15) BAEN AUTHOR JOHN SCALZI. John Scalzi explains why his next novel won’t be out until 2017 in “Very Important News About My 2016 Novel Release (and Other Fiction Plans)” but makes it up to everyone by highlighting several pieces of short fiction that will be in our hands next year including….
* A short story called “On the Wall” which I co-wrote with my pal Dave Klecha, which is part of the Black Tide Rising anthology, co-edited by John Ringo, for Baen. Yes, that John Ringo and that Baen. Pick your jaws up off the floor, people. I’ve made no bones about liking Baen as a publisher, and I’ve noted for a while that John Ringo and I get on pretty well despite our various differences and occasional snark. Also, it was a ton of fun to write in his universe and with Dave. The BTR anthology comes out June 7th.
This news was broken in August but may have been overlooked by fans occupied by another subject at the time….
Black Tide Rising’s announced contributors are John Ringo, Eric Flint, John Scalzi, Dave Klecha, Sarah Hoyt, Jody Lynn Nye, Michael Z. Williamson, and Kacey Ezell.
(16) WRITER DISARMAMENT TALKS STALL. “George R.R. Martin and Christmas Puppies” is Joe Vasicek’s response to the recent overture.
Now, I don’t disagree with Mr. Martin’s sentiment. I too would like to see reconciliation and de-escalation of the ugliness that we saw from both sides in 2015. And to be fair, Mr. Martin does give a positive characterization of what’s going on right now with Sad Puppies 4. That’s a good first step.
The trouble is, you don’t achieve reconciliation by shouting at the other side to lay down their guns first. You achieve it by hearing and acknowledging their grievances. You might not agree that those grievances need to be rectified, which is fine—that’s what negotiations are for—but you do have to make an effort to listen to the other side. And it’s clear enough that Mr. Martin is not listening.
The core of the Sad Puppies movement is a rejection of elitism….
(17) OUT OF DARKNESS. Were reports that Mark Lawrence is a Grimdark author premature? In Suvudu’s “’Beyond Redemption’ Author Michael R. Fletcher: ‘NO SUCH THING AS GRIMDARK’”, Lawrence says he meant “Aardvark”….
Does anyone actually set out to write grimdark?
I certainly didn’t. I thought Beyond Redemption was fantasy, and maybe dark fantasy if you wanted to label it further. But then I live under a rock.
So I reached out to a few of the authors who have been accused of defiling reality with their overly dark writings.
All quotes are exact and unedited.
Mark Lawrence (Author of The Broken Empire series, and the Red Queen’s War series): “aardvark.”
Other quotes follow, from Django Weler, Teresa Frohock, Scott Oden, Anthony Ryan, Tim Marquitz, and Marc Turner.
[Thanks to John King Tarpinian, Martin Morse Wooster, Andrew Porter, Will R., and Michael J. Walsh for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Daniel Dern.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
eta-delete as I shouldnt have so many tabs open.
@snowcrash
You gave me total deja-vu then!
@snowcrash – was that an argument on another blog? (saw the email)
@Mark
I wonder why!
@Snowcrash
Actually, the whole thing is giving me deja-vu, so many old issues resurfacing. It’s quite interesting to be able to go over it without just being totally dogpiled though, and the incivility level is tolerable.
@Kathodus
Lets call it an ongoing disagreement. Apologies to everyone getting that in the email.
@Mark & @Snowcrash 🙂
Yeesh, ereaderiq! I predict a more efficient siphoning of my money into the TBR mountain range.
I suspect your prediction is correct. The deals are hard to resist. When notified about a sale I find it helps to check and see how frequently the book has had sales over the past 6-12 months and what the lowest price it’s been at – click on the book title when looking at your notifications page. This has helped keep me from buying books “on sale” and get them later at a better price. I still buy too many books but they are all great sales so I saved money. Hubby keeps trying to explain how not buying the books would save even more money but I don’t believe his logic…
@Tasha Turner: I believe his logic, but it misses that then you wouldn’t have the books…
I don’t think the preppers or the anarcho-primitives think of that. Or they don’t see that as a problem, I’m not sure which. Given that most of them seem to be men, flip a coin.
Anyway…
Gedankenexperiment:
1. If not for modern technology, would you still be alive today?
2. Care to list a few examples?
1. Most likely not.
2. Let’s see:
* I believe there was some problems with my childbirth.
* Let’s roll percentile dice!
…..*26*
Nope. I die in childhood. Insert cause as background detail.
(Honestly, I’d have a better chance getting through Traveller character generation.)
*Oh hey! Let’s not forget the times I got cut by rusty metal!
* Really bad nearsightedness.
* With no books or TV, my hyperactivity, ADHD and overactive imagination would have caused me to be stoned to death by my neighbors.
Sorry, y’all – I probably misread the “fangirls squeeing” comment because, coming upon it right after the “utterly, girlishly obsessed” comment, I just gave up and facepalmed in the corner for a bit rather than reading it carefully. I’m not used to coming across feminized insults from File770 regulars – it’s not, typically, what this commentariat does – so the rare times that it happens, I’m entirely unguarded and unready and it hurts.
So, yes, I misread the comment as insulting newcomer Dr. Strange fans as all being “fangirls”, when on closer inspection it seems the intent was instead to belittle women with crushes on Cumberbatch for only having discovered Dr. Strange through his involvement.
That is, as others have pointed out, Not Remotely OK, but it’s a different flavor of Not Remotely OK than using “girlish” as an insult.
@Lenora Rose Tasha Turner: I believe his logic, but it misses that then you wouldn’t have the books…
When he was the book collector we couldn’t have enough books. But I’ve said no more physical books (they are starting to fall off things and hit me in the head). I think he believes over 6k ebooks plus his thousands of physical books is enough to keep me reading for years even at 200+ books a year… I’m sure he has several logical points. But they might not be the books I want to read right now. Us Gen Xers* all about having it all when we want it not like him and the baby boom generation* who have patience and understand penny pinching. 😉
*All stereotyping done in making fun of my husband and myself and does not reflect on anyone else from either generation LOL
Yeah, Nicole really does have a point.
There’s a lot to unpack regarding how fans react to other fans expressions of interest, but the bottom line is that really sounds a hell of a lot like “Women couldn’t possibly be interested in MY comic fandom, they lack the long-term exposure and the Y-gene that’s necesarry for a true comics connoisseur.”
Shades of the cosplayers who get cornered at comic conventions by guys who pepper them with obscure questions about the character, all to prove thay are “Fake Geek Girls.” Which is really dickish gatekeeping.
As my partner said, “Short of kidnapping and being forced to experience it at gunpoint, there is no wrong way to get exposed to a work, whether it’s in a comic or the theater.”
@Tasha Turner: They are the books you deserve, but not the books you need right now.
I used to have a crush on Benedict Cumberbatch myself, before I understood that it disappeared when he was not playing Sherlock Holmes. Since then I’ve begun to call myself literasexual.
@Oneiros well said. Oh so well said.
@Rose: “There’s a lot to unpack regarding how fans react to other fans expressions of interest, but the bottom line is that really sounds a hell of a lot like “Women couldn’t possibly be interested in MY comic fandom, they lack the long-term exposure and the Y-gene that’s necesarry for a true comics connoisseur.””
There is a certain perception that the Cumberbatch fans aren’t “discovering Dr. Strange” so much as they’re “going to see a Cumberbatch movie” and could not care less about the mythos, in the same way that some men watch Elementary because Lucy Liu’s hot, not because they care about Sherlock Holmes. As for me, I’m not making any guesses about proportions, but I’d say all four of those sets (fem Strange, fem Cumber, male Liu, male Holmes) are nonzero.
Watching a licensed property because actor/actress X is in it isn’t an invalid decision, but it is definitely a different decision than doing so because you’re a fan of the material being licensed. Sure, one may lead to the other, but I think it’s fallacious to assume that this will always be the case.
@Rev. Bob:
Granting that Lucy Liu is, in fact, hot, is there evidence that such men exist? Because I haven’t seen their spoor. Contrariwise, I have seen the ups and downs of female Cumberbatch fandom.
One of the many praiseworthy things about Elementary is that it the camera doesn’t treat Liu as a sexpot. Even when she is literally being woken out of sleep by Holmes in her nightclothes there’s none of the prurient lingering with which “starlets” are usually treated. Unless the show has changed a lot since I was keeping up with it reliably. Liu gets costumed in a range of outfits from middle-aged professional woman to casual wear. But she always looks and carries herself with the air of someone with things to do.
Whatever has happened to “Your kink is not my kink but your kink is okay”?
Surely fans who follow Benedict Cumberbatch from production to production and are thus about to be introduced to the joys of Doctor Strange are no less legitimate than longtime fans of the Doctor Strange comic who suffered through every cancelled title and the desert exile years of obscurity.
Surely people who are only in it for the gorgeous costumes are no less legitimate fans than those who can rattle off every spell and know every minor character.
Surely that people can take joy in multiple facets of fandom is a good thing.
Peace, you are being far too reasonable. Two pixel demerits.
I get a lot of those.
@Peace: “Surely people who are only in it for the gorgeous costumes are no less legitimate fans than those who can rattle off every spell and know every minor character.”
My question is not whether they’re fans, but what they’re fans of. There’s nothing at all wrong with being a Cumberbatch fan, but seeing the Dr. Strange movie because Cumberbatch is in it doesn’t make one a Dr. Strange fan. I can admire gorgeous costumes without caring one bit what character they represent – that makes me a costume fan, not a that-character fan. It may even be baser than that; if I see an attractive woman in white lingerie, I may find the point that it’s a flawless White Queen costume completely irrelevant.
I’m not saying the Cumberbatch fans are any “less” than Dr. Strange fans – I’m just saying that they’re a different group. And that’s fine. I’m grousing about the “all X must be Y” vibe I’m perceiving. Thing is, I’m not saying “all who attend the movie must be vetted as trufans.” I’m saying “wanting to see Cumberbatch on the screen doesn’t automatically make someone a Dr. Strange fan.”
Their kink is okay, but it is not my kink, and that’s okay, too.
I can honestly say that the only reason I watched a Star Trek movie was that Cumberbatch was in it. And it in no way made me a fan of Star Trek.
I’m saying “wanting to see Cumberbatch on the screen doesn’t automatically make someone a Dr. Strange fan.”
I think I see the translation problem. Despite sharing a title, Dr. Strange (the movie) is not the same item as Dr. Strange (the comic-book-based media property). The movie of that title, being an umbrella that contains both the franchise and Benedict Cumberbatch, is a legitimate fan activity for fans of both elements. So, in fact, wanting to see Cumberbatch on screen does make someone a Dr. Strange (the movie) fan. What it does not do, you are correct, is make someone a Dr. Strange (the CBBMP) fan, unless the movie acts as a conversion experience. But people in it for the Cumberbatch have every bit as much claim to the movie.
It’s no secret to anyone making the film that the faction that claims fannishness of the lead actor has the same stakes as the faction that claims fannishness of the lead character. The whole business reason for casting Cumberbatch is awareness that he will provide the movie automatically with a faction of fans whose dollars they want. For them, automatic Dr. Strange (the movie) fans are a feature, and Dr. Strange (the CBBMP) fans are… not a sufficient fanbase to support them in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed. Movie fandom is something of a coalition of the fannishly willing, it’s not the fandom of the original property.
@Amoxtli: (translation problem)
Frankly, I think that’s where a lot of the “fake geek (girl)” stuff comes from, too: fans* of the core property taking umbrage at “interlopers” whose enthusiasm about something other than that core brings them into more traditionally fannish spaces. Fan sees signs of core-fandom, engages, new person doesn’t come from that same fannish origin, fan feels betrayed and deceived by a “fake.”
* Remember that “fan of X” and “someone who likes X” are not the same thing, and they may or may not have anything to do with “fandom.” That distinction is crucial to the Puppy problem, which I see as another facet of this sort of misunderstanding. Puppies constantly confuse “fan of SFF” with “part of fandom,” and those Puppies who are the former but not the latter can easily perceive an unintended claim of elitism when members of the latter attempt to explain the distinction. There is a reason that “fan” is short for “fanatic”!
How so?
I wanted to see THE HATEFUL EIGHT, but I wouldn’t say I was a fan of it before I saw it. Just wanting to see something doesn’t strike me as enough to say that. What if I’d hated it? I can say I’m a fan of it now, because I liked it a lot.
If wanting to see a movie makes you a fan of it, am I a fan of everything in my TBR pile?
[To clarify, I don’t have any issue with people who are or aren’t Dr. Strange fans, Benedict Cumberbatch fans, Marvel Cinematic Universe fans or whatever; I’m just pretty sure I disagree with the idea that wanting to see something that isn’t out yet makes one a fan of it. A potential fan, sure.]
It does seem like part of the “fake geek girl” wrath comes from people upset that what they thought of as their personal “safe space” has people unlike them in it.
I prefer to recognize that there are lots of different ways of enjoyment and as for fandom, the more the merrier.
Pingback: Top 10 Posts for December 2015 | File 770
@Kurt: I wanted to see THE HATEFUL EIGHT, but I wouldn’t say I was a fan of it before I saw it. Just wanting to see something doesn’t strike me as enough to say that. What if I’d hated it? I can say I’m a fan of it now, because I liked it a lot.
Sure, no argument here. I think you’re misinterpreting that line you’ve quoted. We’re talking about whether Cumberbitches can be considered legitimate fans of the Dr. Strange movie, or whether they’re fake geek girls for wanting to see the movie for Cumberbatch rather than for the Dr. Strange franchise. The context is pre-existing high-investment fannish groups, not people on the street; how the fan label is denied, not what one needs to do to acquire it; and “wanting to see the film” is a discussion of the origin of their fannish interest in the film, not what degree of desire qualifies as fannish. Those might be interesting questions in defining fannishness, but I don’t think that’s the conversation we’re having here. If it were, I’d have talked a lot more about opt-in labelling based on self-identified emotional investment.
Is that a binary choice?
Can’t they be Cumberbatch fans who don’t know whether they’re going to like the movie, but are eager to see it for Cumberbatch?
@Kurt: Can’t they be Cumberbatch fans who don’t know whether they’re going to like the movie, but are eager to see it for Cumberbatch?
Sure, that’s quite sensible. But it’s a discussion of what conditions need to be met for an individual to arrive at the label of “fan” for themselves, not a discussion of how collective gatekeeping shuts out people who want to call themselves fans. I see this basically as a discussion about gatekeeping, and that’s the only issue I’m focusing on, personally.
I can see, based on the phrasing I used, why you seem to believe I said fannishness of a movie can be determined in advance of having seen that movie, but I wouldn’t advocate for that idea and I don’t think that is actually what I was saying. I would take issue with me if I thought I’d said that, too. I was describing which pre-existing fannish interests led people to their fannish emotional investment in the movie, because the perceived validity of those routes into a movie is important to the gatekeeping question.
(@Kurt, TL;DR, I think we don’t actually disagree, we’re just having subtly different conversations, “how do you become a fan” versus “how do fans gatekeep other fans”.)
it’s a discussion of what conditions need to be met for an individual to arrive at the label of “fan” for themselves, not a discussion of how collective gatekeeping shuts out people who want to call themselves fans
This whole exchange is a great example of why, although I’ve been reading and loving fantasy and science fiction pretty much since I was able to read, I have zero interest in auditioning for whether I’m enough of a “fan” to qualify for… pretty much anything.
What some people really want to say, IMO, is “you’re not really a fan, you just think he’s hot!” At this point in my life, I have so little interest in that kind of gatekeeping and policing… Somebody watches the movie because they think Cumberbatch is hot? Cool enough. Let’s have the conversation around “What did you like about it? What didn’t you like? What else have you liked?” not “Prove you’re worthy of being part of the conversation.”
What the hell is a “Cumberbitch”? Is that referring to me?
Hampus Eckerman: What the hell is a “Cumberbitch”? Is that referring to me?
Cumberbitches vs. Pine Nuts
What the hell is a “Cumberbitch”? Is that referring to me?
“Cumberbitch” is a term that some people, including some fans themselves, use to refer to fans of Benedict Cumberbatch. In an earlier comment, I referred to the term “Cumberbitch” when I said that John Finnemore had been pushing back against criticism of “the so-called ‘Cumberbitches'”.
Cumberbatch doesn’t like the term, apparently.
Few people appreciate terms that are twistings of their names, especially ones that include obscenities.
I’ve always heard it as a self-chosen term by the fans, though admittedly one I do wince a little when writing. (Like “Sad Puppies”, it sounds like a pejorative someone else assigned them rather than one they chose themselves. Unlike Sad Puppies, they tend to be generous people who spend their fannish energy talking happily about their enthusiasms and making amazing things, making the term one with a lot of positive connotations for people in adjacent fandoms.)
My apologies to those uncomfortable with the term. I used it here to concretely name an existing and organized fandom that frequently has the problem we were discussing, to avoid some of the euphemism and contextual understatement that seemed to be getting me in trouble with Kurt.
Based on that interview snippet, he doesn’t dislike it because it’s twisting his name, he dislikes it because he thinks “bitch” is derogatory and sets feminism back. He suggests “Cumberbabes” as being softer on the ear, and “Cumberbuddies” as being nice.
If a person considers themselves a fan of Benedict Cumberbatch that self-identification is good enough for me. Those others who want to impose a fan-purity test are trying to gatekeep, and I have no interest in being someone like that.
I’m going to remain politely skeptical that “Cumberbitch” is a term srlf-chosen by Cumberbatch fans. Aside from its obviously sexist and contemptuous tone, the fact that Cumberbatch himself dislikes it and has suggested friendlier possible names for his fans should weigh somewhat with people not being intentionally rude.
And yeah, the original comment dissing Cumberbatch fans seeing the Dr. Strange movie was hard to read as anything other than fan policing.
@Lexica: Based on that interview snippet, he doesn’t dislike it because it’s twisting his name, he dislikes it because he thinks “bitch” is derogatory and sets feminism back. He suggests “Cumberbabes” as being softer on the ear, and “Cumberbuddies” as being nice.
His heart is in the right place, and his understanding and priorities are pretty admirable. I mean, he’s not wrong, and good on him for being willing to wear the “this is what a feminist looks like” shirt in public. But there are endless op-eds waiting to be written on the question of whether women selecting a reclaimed term for their own use sets feminism back more than the man who explains feminism to them and suggests they call themselves something nicer or softer instead. Not liking profanity portmanteaued into his name would keep that whole can of worms shut.
They did pick a name that’s damn hard for anyone who isn’t both female and a self-identified Cumberbitch, like Cumberbatch himself, to use. The thing about reclamation of terms is that it’s not the same word when used by someone outside the group. Not everyone in his position would realize that, so I genuinely do appreciate his dislike of using it.
@Lis Carey: FWIW, I’ve only ever seen the term “Cumberbitch” used as a self-designator. Outside of this thread anyway.
Reclaiming words is a difficult topic that by the nature of the action not everyone will agree on.
I wouldn’t call myself a Cumberbitch even if I was a fan but I don’t think I want to tell anyone else that they can’t use it as an identity. I don’t think I’ll use the word to refer to them, though, because I dislike it. Other people are free to make their own choice about that and I won’t judge them whatever option they choose.
@Meredith, you are so kind and thoughtful that it’s an absolute pleasure to have fallen afoul of your personal line in this instance. I look forward to engaging in some more mutual respecting of opinion in future discussions. 🙂
Oddly, this all has had me thinking about Kelly Sue DeConnick’s “Bitch Planet” and implicit male gaze versus implicit female gaze in language usage. “Babe Planet” wouldn’t be remotely the same comic as “Bitch Planet”. It would probably have an incredibly different target audience, and I suspect there’d be a lot fewer women moved to get “NC” tattoos.
Entirely how it’s relevant, I don’t know, but I was trying to figure out why “Cumberbabe” sounded far, far more insulting to my ear than “Cumberbitch”, and went on a small mental tangent about reclamation and whose POV is assumed as the definitive connotation of a word. “Bitch”, alongside its male-gaze usage, has a female-gaze usage with an implication of agency that a lot of women identify with, while “babe” has only a male-gaze usage with an implication of infantilization and objectification. If dirty looks could kill, I’d get into a lot of trouble with someone who called me a Cumberbabe, but if they called me a Cumberbitch, I’d wait to see how respectfully they said it.
@Amoxtil
Thank you, that’s very flattering. 🙂 One of the things I love about File770 is that we can have conversations like this without them dissolving into namecalling and silliness every time. I love the people and community here!
Babe is an interesting comparison because that’s another word that people have been trying to reclaim – for example the Tiptree Space Babe, or the not-infrequent times someone will post a selfie tagged with something roughly along the lines of “I look like a total babe today”.
For me, I’m neutral about babe in and of itself (I’d use it if it fit what I was aiming for but it isn’t a favourite word) but “Cumberbabe” sounds patronising to my ear because of the reasons you mention; I think incorporating it into fannish appreciation of a man and to some extent as a result of that tying it directly to the male gaze rather than it being a personal affirmation is what tips it over the edge in my view.
I like babe more than I like bitch for personal use (although “bitch” for “complain”* – or “female dog – is something I’m fine with, I just don’t like applying it to people), but I agree that “Cumberbitch” does, to me, sound less patronising than “Cumberbabe”. However, “Cumberbitch” picks up some really unpleasant subtext that “Cumberbabe” lacks (“bitch in heat”) which is why I personally would rather not use either of the terms, although again, I wouldn’t judge someone for doing so.**
Cumberbuddies sounds quite charming to me, but I have no idea whether there’s something I’m missing about that one!
*I’m aware of the problematic sexist associations of “bitching” but gosh darnit it’s just so satisfying to say you need to bitch about something for a minute.
**Unless they were rude about it. Sneering at Cumberbatch fans isn’t cool.
… Although now I’m considering whether, considering the direction the gaze usually travels in the fangirl –> Cumberbatch relationship, ‘Cumberbabes’ might be an interesting inversion of the usual male gaze connotations of ‘babe’. I’m just not sure it quite works as an inversion if the name is imposed from without (especially a male without) rather than within.
Cumberanything no longer looks like a word. I have typed it too many times. 😀
I think it’s worth keeping two things in mind:
1. Cumberbatch’s female fans did not name themselves “Cumberbabes.”
2. Consonance is a thing! It’s not hard to see why the originators would’ve gone for “Cumberbitch” for themselves: rhymes are fun! Even slant rhymes.
I think the obvious group term for Benedict’s fans is a Cumberbunch.
Here’s a story about a man named Benny
Who scored the role of a modern Sherlock Holmes
His cast of voice was low and mellow
With an aristo-cra-tic tone
The Watson casting was a man named Freeman
And their chemistry spawned fanfic far and wide
And all the the time the man named Benny
Took his fame in stride
Soon there were so many tumble pages
That Benny’s fans developed quite a punch
The fanfics and the tumblrs needed a group name
And that’s the way they became the Cumberbunch