Pixel Scroll 4/18/17 There Is A Scroll In Everything, That’s How The Pixel Gets In

(1) WISDOM. Chuck Wendig’s birthday gift to himself can also be shared with the universe — lucky us: “What I’ve Learned After 5 Years And 20 Books: 25 Lessons”. JJ’s favorite is #21. This is my pick —

  1. The Opposite Of ‘Kill Your Darlings’ Is ‘Know Which Hill To Die On’

Early on you learn to kill your darlings. Your work has these precious, preening peacocks who strut about for their own pomp and circumstance. These darlings are like chairs you can’t sit on, food you can’t eat — they’re just there to look pretty and take up space. So, you kill them. You learn to kill them. You get good at killing them. And then, one day, you realize maybe you got too good at it. Maybe you went too far. You started to think of everything as expendable, everything as negotiable. But it isn’t. It can’t be. I learned this writing Star Wars: yes, those books are not purely mine. They belong to the galaxy, not to me. Just the same? It’s my name on those books. If they fail, they fail on my watch. If there’s something in there you don’t like, it doesn’t matter if it’s something Mickey Mouse his-own-damn-self demanded I put in there: it lands on my doorstep. That’s when I saw the other side of the brutally execute your peacocks argument: some peacocks stay. Some peacocks are yours, and you put them there because that’s where you want them. Maybe they add something specific, maybe you’re just an asshole who demands that one lone peacock warbling and showing its stuff. But you own that. You have to see when there are battles to lose, and when there are wars to win. There are always hills to die on. It can’t be all of them. You want to die on every hill, then you’re dead for no reason and the book will suffer. But some things are yours and you have to know which ones to fight for, and why. You have to know why they matter and then you have to be prepared to burn the book to ash in order to let it stay.

(2) WRITE LIKE THE LIGHTNING. Too Like the Lightning author and Hugo nominee Ada Palmer is interviewed in the Chicago Maroon.

CM: Where’d your inspiration arise from, and what made you want to write a book with such an intersection of so many topics like philosophy, politics, science fiction?

AP: I mean, good science fiction is like that. Great science fiction is full of ideas, not just one, or two, or five ideas, but new ideas in every page. Also, I was inspired by reading pre-modern science fiction, which I do as a historian. We think of science fiction as a late 19th- and 20th-century genre, but Voltaire wrote a science fiction short story called “Micromegas,” in which aliens from another star and from Saturn come to the Earth. When they make first contact with people, the first thing they discuss is, “Is Plato or Descartes correct about how the soul and body connect to each other?” and “Is Thomas Aquinas’s discussion of Aristotle’s divisions of the parts of the soul true?” Voltaire’s society was obsessed with providence, so providence and the existence of God and the immaterial soul was what his people talked to aliens about, and it was as plausible to him as our science fiction works are to us.

So I wanted to write science fiction that used the amazingly sophisticated vocabulary of modern science fiction, all the great developments we’ve had in terms of thinking about AI and flying cars, but to ask questions like Voltaire would.

(3) GOT TO HAVE IT. A couple of other Hugo nominees woke up the internet.

Ditch Diggers has been nominated for a Hugo Award! You did it! Mur and Matt will go up against the likes of The Coode Street Podcast and Tea & Jeopardy in Helsinki for Best Fancast (even though we’re all professionals. Because there’s only one podcast category)! Thank you to all Ditch Diggers listeners who supported the show and don’t forget to vote for Mur and Matt for the Hugo itself!

(4) PROFESSIONALISM. Michi Trota reinforces the lessons of Odyssey Con in “Volunteers, Professionals, and Who Gets to Have Fun at Cons”.

…Being on the job at a con doesn’t have to ruin my fun–or anyone else’s for that matter–but you know what does? The dude with the grabby hands and eyes trained on my chest. The person who kills a conversation with their racist jokes. The gatekeeper who quizzes me on the X-Men then tries to play Gotcha! with a question about Legend of Zelda because obviously the brown Asian woman’s just playing at being a nerd. The asshole selling misogynistic art. A concom that selectively enforces their code of conduct and dismisses concerns I’ve expressed about my safety because “Stories about X’s behavior are just exaggerated.” Not only does that ruin any fun to be had, it also makes my job that much harder to do, potentially costs me opportunities as a creator, and makes me wonder how much of my investment that con is actually worth (Elise Matthesen had some excellent things to say about the real costs of harassment and who pays them).

This is where the argument that having things like rules, codes, and policies that attendees and organizers are expected to abide by also ruins everyone’s fun usually comes up. But it begs the question: just whose fun are we referring to here? Because let’s be real, con’s haven’t always been fun for everyone.

… The widespread adoption and implementation of anti-harassment policies and codes of conduct has made it a bit easier for people like me to be more involved in fandom. They don’t mean that I never run into problems, but it’s less likely those problems will outweigh the time and effort I invest in those cons. It’s because of my participation and attendance at cons as both a fan and a pro that I was able to meet people and find opportunities that helped me get to where I am now. Expectations of professionalism on the part of con organizers are not unreasonable simply because those organizers are volunteers. There’s absolutely nothing wrong about professionals treating cons as a workplace (particularly if they’re guests who have been contracted by the con for their presence) and nothing preventing pros and fans from being friendly with each other. There’s nothing about running your con with a minimum of professional standards, practices, and behavior that excludes everyone also having fun.

If your fun is dependent using your status as a volunteer as an excuse to not act responsibly, if it requires victims to stay quiet about mistreatment: then it’s not really a fun time for “everyone” is it? It’s not the expectation of professionalism that’s killing the fun at cons, it’s the lack of it.

As Deb Geisler says, “Never, ever, ever should “but we’re just volunteers” be an excuse not to do the finest job of which we are capable.”

(5) STUMBLING BLOCK QUESTIONS. Alyssa Wong says it in her own way in “Why ‘I’m a feminist, but –‘ isn’t enough”.

ii.

Incidents of sexual harassment in the SFF field are distressingly numerous. And it’s nothing new; Isaac Asimov was so well known to grope women that in 1961 he was asked to deliver a “pseudo lecture” on “the positive power of posterior pinching” (read the correspondence between Earl Kemp, chairman of Chicon III, and Asimov here).

But this isn’t 1961. SFF is more global, diverse and inclusive than ever, and much richer for it. Writers who challenge and explore systematic injustice and oppression through their work are myriad; their work can be found in bookstores, presses, and online across genres, across the world.

And yet we keep asking:

are you sure she didn’t just have a vendetta?

how could it be sexual harassment if he didn’t touch her?

why do we need to be so politically correct?

Why? Because real people are affected. Because both macro- and microaggressions are harmful.Because everyone deserves to feel safe in professional settings, and for writers and industry professionals, that is what conventions are. Moreover, Wiscon is a feminist SFF convention. If safe feminist space exists in genre, Wiscon should definitely be part of it.

What concerns me is the number of women and men who continue to stand up for known abusers. In this sense, it seems that Jim Frenkel is not alone.

(6) CARPENTRY. Cat Rambo also says it is “Time to Fix the Missing Stair”, in a multifaceted post that includes this allusion to a Superversive SF post, and highlights from a relevant panel at last weekend’s Norwescon.

…[Re: Monica Valentinelli’s departure as OdysseyCon guest] One manifestation of that is a brief statement asking why she hates women, declaring that her example will make conventions reluctant to invite any women in the future. Let’s unpack that one a little because the underpinnings seem ill-constructed to me.

There are many kinds of humans in the world. That means there’re also many kinds of women. The logic of the above statement says two things: 1) that it is wrong for people speak out about conditions that are uncomfortable, unprofessional, or sometimes even dangerous and 2) that only people with the strength to survive a gauntlet that can include being groped onstage, being mocked publicly, having their work denigrated for no reason other than having been produced by a woman, and a multitude of other forms of harassment deserve careers and the rest are out of luck. Does that really need to be demanded for someone to have a career? Writers are notoriously unstable mentally as it is. Serial harassment is a professional matter.

This was underscored for me on a Norwescon (a con that does a great job with selecting programming and volunteers and understands the issues) panel that I moderated last Friday, Standing Up to the Mob, with panelists Minim Calibre, Arinn Dembo, Mickey Schulz, and Torrey Stenmark. The description was:

How do you support female creators who are being harassed online by the ravening hordes of the unenlightened? Tips for voicing your support in ways that mean something.

Here are Arinn Dembo’s excellent notes on the panel overall.

(7) THEY’RE GONE. Would you like to bet this writer’s stance was a factor in today’s decision to retire the Lovecraft nominee pins?

(8) THE ONE-PERSON SALES FORCE. A lot of things affect an indie author’s sales and it isn’t easy to keep all of them in mind, as Amanda S. Green explains in “It really is a business” at Mad Genius Club.

The next thing I looked at happened to be my product pages. Oh my, there is so much there we have to take into consideration and we don’t tend to. At least I don’t. Sure, I want to have the best possible cover to draw the reader’s eye. I want a snappy and interesting blurb to grab the reader and make them want to buy the book. But I don’t tend to check the product page on anything other than my laptop. I forget to look at it on my Kindle Fire or Mom’s iPad. I sure forget to look at it in my phone. Or, more accurately, I used to forget it. After the last few days, I won’t. What I learned is that the longer blurbs will work on a tablet or computer screen but, on a phone, they are a pain because you have to keep scrolling. Not good. Scrolling for a screen or two is one thing but for screen after screen after screen — nope. Not gonna happen. Fortunately, most of mine weren’t that bad and those that were happen to be on two titles I am going to withdraw because they were supposed to be short term promo titles initially.

(9) I’M A DOCTOR NOT A MILLIONAIRE. By the way, if you want to know how much the tricorder X Prize was worth, the Washington Post article says that Final Frontier Medical Devices, led by Dr. Basil Harris, won the $2.6 million first prize in this contest, with Dynamical Biomarkers Group got $1 million for second place.

(10) MAGAZINE LAUNCH. Anathema has published its first issue. The free, online tri-annual magazine publishes speculative fiction by queer people of color. The magazine was funded by a 2016 IndieGoGo campaign.

Exceptional art is a bruise: it leaves its mark on you. At its best it leaves us vulnerable and raw, transformed by the experience. At Anathema we’re interested in giving that exceptional work a home. Specifically the exceptional work of queer people of colour (POC). As practicing editors we’re keenly aware of the structural and institutional racism that makes it hard for the work of marginalized writers to find a home.

So Anathema: Spec from the Margins is a free, online tri-annual magazine publishing speculative fiction (SF/F/H, the weird, slipstream, surrealism, fabulism, and more) by queer people of colour on every range of the LGBTQIA spectrum.

(11) TODAY IN HISTORY

  • April 18, 1938 – Superman made his first appearance in Action Comics #1. (Cover-dated June, but published in April.)

(12) TAFF. SF Site News reports John Purcell has won the Trans-Atlantic Fan Fund race. Voting details at the link.

(13) CARTOON OF THE DAY. Martin Morse Wooster recommends The Bigger Picture, a cartoon by Daisy Jacobs done in the style of a painting about two brothers feuding over their ailing mother. It was a 2015 Academy Award nominee

(14) DEVIL’S DICTIONARY. In McSweeney’s, Rajeev Balasubramanyam’s “A Short Description of Cultural Appropriation for Non-Believers” supplies a wryly amusing 10-point illustration of the term.

(15) WINTER IS HERE. Dave Truesdale, who had a lot to say about “special snowflakes” at last year’s Worldcon, has been using an F&SF forum discussion to call into account Liz Bourke’s Tor.com post “Thoughts on the 2017 Hugo Awards Ballot”.

….Going back to 1993, women received the majority of the 15 Hugo short fiction nominations that year. Hardly discrimination by the entire SF field. And that was just shy of 25 years ago!

But now it’s not yay!, look how far we’ve come in a positive celebration for a year in which women and poc dominate several major awards ballots, it’s neener neener we dominated an award ballot and “This year is a historic one for the Hugo Awards in more ways than one. In addition to the changes to the awards process, this is the first year in which the Best Novel nominees have been so completely devoid in white men.” [[Link added]]

Why the F bring up white men I ask for the umpteenth time. Why not white straight women too, then, who have been on the ballot plenty over the past 40 or 50 years and have taken up plenty of slots that could have gone to poc, especially in the past decade or so (pick your starting point).

Why just white men? An unconscious bias perhaps? A conscious prejudice? Give me a sound reason why not just “white” people, or “men” were noted in the article, but “white men.” There’s something else going on here. The article doesn’t have to come right out and be the instigation of a flame war in its use of inflammatory language and tone to reveal certain things about the writer or her view of the situation. That she’s more subtle in doing it doesn’t give her a pass.

He came back again and added:

In the stuff-you-always-think-of-later department:

CJW wrote: “She noted the lack of white men on the Best Novel list, because there were no white men on the Best Novel list.”

There were also no black, brown, yellow, or red men on the list either. So why single out white men I ask again for the 3rd or 4th time? Subconscious prejudice bubbling to the surface because that is her default–that pesky white color? What could possibly be the reason she forgot non-white men? I mean, there has to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for her discriminatory statement.

Although other commenters weren’t interested in engaging with Truesdale’s complaint, they couldn’t resist dropping in another coin to see him go off again.

SHamm ended a reply —

P.S.: Dave, I am not quite sure from your phrasing: are you under the impression that Milo Yiannopoulos is a “straight white male”?

P.P.S.: Dave, I believe Best Novel nominee Liu Cixin qualifies as a “yellow man,” in your parlance, although I am told that particular descriptor is no longer much in vogue.

P.P.S.: Dave, does it have to be a “straw MAN”? Asking as a man.

Truesdale answered:

SHamm, of course Milo is gay, but he doesn’t agree with the party line and so is reviled and efforts are made to silence him.

Liu Cixin is a yellow man in historical terminology, which makes the essayists use of “white men” even more telling. Person of color=OK. White men not OK.

Straw man is just a phrase we are all familiar with. No need to make anything out of it.

Why bring Puppies into this? No Sad Puppy I know of is afraid of women/people of color/LGBTQ writers dominating the awards. Certainly not me. I’ve said it a hundred times, the more the merrier. The problem for me arises when these same people heralding diversity for their own benefit try to silence diversity of thought from everyone else. And if you dare speak out you suffer the consequences–inside and outside the SF field, witness Milo and others lately who have suffered similar fates while trying to express differing views on university campuses (though maybe not with the violence attendant at Milo’s cancelled talk). It’s the darker underside agenda of those rallying behind good causes such as diversity that puts the lie to their true agenda. And it’s hurting SF. Again, writers aren’t taking the kinds of chances in speaking of social or political issues they used to, for fear of various forms of reprisal from those waving the banner of diversity. Their diversity only runs in one way, and its killing free speech and controversial thought experiments in our stories. That Puppy crap still being thrown out is ridiculous and an intellectual dodge. Besides, there was no SP this year as far as I know, but every time this discussion comes up someone thinks that tossing in SP or RP is the answer to everything, when it is an excuse to honestly address the issue.

(16) MAKES SENSE. The head of Netflix isn’t worried about Amazon and HBO because, he says, they aren’t the competition.

But today, on Netflix’s Q1 earnings call, [Netflix CEO Reed] Hastings got a little more expansive, in a bong-rip-in-a-dorm-room way, if that’s still a thing. (Is that still a thing?) Here’s the answer he gave to an Amazon competition question; we join this one mid-response, right after he finished praising Amazon and Jeff Bezos:

They’re doing great programming, and they’ll continue to do that, but I’m not sure it will affect us very much. Because the market is just so vast. You know, think about it, when you watch a show from Netflix and you get addicted to it, you stay up late at night. You really — we’re competing with sleep, on the margin. And so, it’s a very large pool of time. And a way to see that numerically is that we’re a competitor to HBO, and yet over 10 years we’ve grown to 50 million, and they’ve continued modestly growing. They haven’t shrunk. And so if you think about it as, we’re not really affecting them, the is why — and that’s because we’re like two drops of water in the ocean, of both time and spending for people. And so Amazon could do great work, and it would be very hard for it to directly affect us. It’s just — home entertainment is not a zero-sum game. And again, HBO’s success, despite our tremendous success, is a good way to illustrate that.

(17) AND NOW FOR MORE SCIENCE. This unauthenticated video may date before the Ice Age. Or before breakfast today.

(18) INKLINGS NEWS. Inklings Abroad is developing an international registry of known Inklings groups.

(19) DANCE WITH ME. Believe it — Guardians of the Galaxy has a La La Land moment!

(20) THINK TWICE BEFORE GETTING THAT EXTRA LARGE SODA. In its own way, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 threatens to have as many endings as Return of the King. As ScienceFiction.com says — “Just To Outshine The Rest Of Marvel’s Movies, ‘Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2? Will Have 5 Post-Credit Scenes!”

Director James Gunn blew away expectations with his first foray into Marvel’s Cinematic Universe, and now he’s doing it again by adding five post-credit scenes at the end of ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2‘! Originally it was being announced that he had four included from early press screenings and now Gunn himself took to clarify that it would be five. That’s one announcement he could make that would easily top his return to helm ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, ‘ but honestly, I think we were all hoping that was going to happen anyway.

This will set an all new record for the most post-credit scenes in a superhero movie, possibly of any genre.

[Thanks to Martin Morse Wooster, JJ, Cat Eldridge, Carl Slaughter, John King Tarpinian, Cat Rambo. and Kate Nepveu for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Schnookums Von Fancypants.]

178 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 4/18/17 There Is A Scroll In Everything, That’s How The Pixel Gets In

  1. @clif —

    “But it seemed .. gratuitous to me.”

    Again — is blond hair gratuitous? Are blue eyes gratuitous?

    You can’t have it both ways. Either all physical descriptions are gratuitous, or they aren’t.

    “It stuck out of the story and struck me as unnecessary.”

    It only stuck out to you because you see a trans person as “the other”. You are comfortable with descriptions of blond hair or blue eyes because you identify with them — you see them as “normal”, “typical” — but you don’t with trans people. Therefore you feel that a trans person needs some justification for existing in a book, where you don’t feel the same need to justify the existence of a blond person.

  2. Sure, it would be great to have that (unobtainable) information, but it wouldn’t convince anyone who could look at the numbers that are available and remain unconvinced there was any difference in opportunity for men and women. In other words, facts aren’t very effective at changing a closed mind.

    hmmm … if 1055 stories were accepted out of 1075 submitted … would that still mean women were underrepresented?

    Surely we have that data for today’s magazines/anthologies to compare.

  3. It only stuck out to you because you see a trans person as “the other”. You are comfortable with descriptions of blond hair or blue eyes because you identify with them — you see them as “normal”, “typical” — but you don’t with trans people. Therefore you feel that a trans person needs some justification for existing in a book, where you don’t feel the same need to justify the existence of a blond person.

    hmm maybe.

    but blond hair blue eyes tall thin short rotund etc are all cosmetic descriptions. Describing genitalia doesn’t really fall into that category. Blood type is another example … Tonkee was blood type AB+ … so what? Why do we need to know this?

    and I’m not arguing that trans people aren’t normal … but they certainly aren’t ‘typical’ … any more than a person with blood type AB+ is typical. So please stop with telling me what I’m comfortable with.

  4. Clif, describing genitals is relevant if the character is nude, or if another character noticed them. Just like describing blond hair is relevant if the character’s hair is exposed, or if another character noticed it. Mentioning that the character is female although she has a penis is exactly as relevant as, for example, a character being described as skinny although he eats sweets constantly.

    It didn’t bother me when I read it, or strike me as box-checking. It was just a character-fact about that character, like a character might be described as fat, or bald, or very tall.

  5. @clif — “but blond hair blue eyes tall thin short rotund etc are all cosmetic descriptions.”

    So is the existence of a five-o’clock shadow. The genital equipment simply explains the presence of the beard.

    “So please stop with telling me what I’m comfortable with.”

    Sorry, but it’s kind of obvious from your question. “Normal” things don’t usually need justification — only “abnormal” things do. If everyone had a pistol on their mantel, then Chekov would never have come up with his law in the first place.

    Red hair isn’t “typical”. Left-handedness isn’t “typical”. Missing appendages aren’t “typical”. Blindness isn’t “typical”. Do you believe that characters with any of these traits also need to have their existence justified?

  6. Mentioning that the character is female although she has a penis is exactly as relevant as, for example, a character being described as skinny although he eats sweets constantly.

    I see.

    or at least I’m trying to.

  7. Red hair isn’t “typical”. Left-handedness isn’t “typical”. Missing appendages aren’t “typical”. Blindness isn’t “typical”. Do you believe that characters with any of these traits also need to have their existence justified?

    of course not … but making a point to mention them generally has some bearing on the story.

  8. 1 – While not a fan of his writing I am a fan of his blog posts about writing which are typically fun to read and informative. I like #24 myself as that seems reflective of life in general.

    5 – I find most sentences that begin that from a defensive posture of ‘I am an X, but…’ or ‘I am not a racist, but…’ are similar insulting someone and saying ‘no offense, but’. Just because the statement was prefaced with an excuse doesn’t actually excuse anything that follows it and often flies directly in the face of it.

    8 – It’s interesting to see the number of factors with the various types of technology that have probably changed a lot of small things such as blurbs or cover art or reviews. I was thinking that after reading Scalzi’s new book while the ‘he said/she asid’ never bothered me the fact that audiobooks exist might make that type of dialogue annoying in audio and I wondered how many authors might now change the way they write because they have an audiobook planned with the popularity of things like Audible. Blubs dependent on average screen size of the target demographic is another as she writes here.

    15 – ‘it’s neener neener we dominated an award ballot’

    I see it a lot that if diversity does happen and people talk about it that some interpret just that discussion as an inflammatory act instead of recognition of a wider field. That interpretation likely has more to do with that individuals insecurity than anything else, but if it was meant to be so, well then you’d have to be pretty dumb to take the bait then right? Insecure or plain dumb, though I wouldn’t rule out both.

    16 – Amazon and HBO aren’t competition but Youtube might be. While Youtube Red isn’t exactly going to catch up in subscriber numbers it wouldn’t surprise me if a free version of Netflix that only contained some Netflix originals with ad monetization was/is being considered.

    19 – With the release around the corner time to go on media blackout for GotG2.

  9. but blond hair blue eyes tall thin short rotund etc are all cosmetic descriptions. Describing genitalia doesn’t really fall into that category.

    Why is it different?

  10. @clif —

    “of course not … but making a point to mention them generally has some bearing on the story.”

    Why do you believe so? Why should it have a bearing on the story if a character has a prosthetic limb? Why should it have a bearing on the story if a character writes messily because they’re left-handed?

    Such character quirks are often simply a part of character-building and worldbuilding. Is this a world that discriminates against the left-handed or the disabled, or not? Is this a world where bisexuality (from book 1) is exceptional, or not? Is this a world where skin color is important, or not? It’s all part of creating the Big Picture. In this case, this is a world where orogeny is discriminated against, but other characteristics that often engender discrimination IRL are accepted.

  11. Why is it different?

    I don’t know Aaron. Should it not be? I’m ok with that I guess, but I’m not sure I always want or need to know the size and/or shape and/or existence of every characters genitals. And if you describe a trans person as trans and only the trans person … isn’t that simply emphasizing the difference?

  12. @clif —

    I’m not sure I always want or need to know the size and/or shape and/or existence of every characters genitals.

    Then you should love Ann Leckie’s books, in which every character is described as female regardless of genitalia. Or Ada Palmer’s books, in which characters are assigned gender descriptions based on role and presentation regardless of genitalia.

    Right?

  13. Such character quirks are often simply a part of character-building and worldbuilding. Is this a world that discriminates against the left-handed or the disabled, or not? Is this a world where bisexuality (from book 1) is exceptional, or not? Is this a world where skin color is important, or not? It’s all part of creating the Big Picture. In this case, this is a world where orogeny is discriminated against, but other characteristics that often engender discrimination IRL are accepted.

    so it IS gratuitous then? As an example of “look here’s a trans person and see, they aren’t remarkable in any way!! Unlike the orogenes that the whole story is about!”

    maybe

    as I said above though .. why aren’t other peoples genitals important enough for description? ALL GENITALS MATTER!

    joking joking of course

  14. One of the ways I found Tonkee’s gender relevant was the question of “how does the end of the world and modern conveniences affect a trans woman?” As I remember it, Tonkee had been using drugs or something to inhibit beard growth but was running out?

    TFS has a diverse cast and attempts to show how they are dealing with apocalyptic events.

  15. clif –

    Unless you’re box checking. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the book, but when I hit that scene I read the rest of the story looking for a reason why. Does it show up later in the sequel?

    This is the first criticism I’ve seen that has used the Chekhov’s penis argument.

  16. @clif —

    so it IS gratuitous then?

    How in the world did you get from “it’s part of character-building and worldbuilding” to “it’s gratuitous”?? Seriously??

  17. Should it not be?

    You’re the one who said that describing hair color, body shape, and other physical characteristics other than genitalia was “cosmetic”, and that whether someone sports an innie or an outie is in a “different category”. I’m asking you to explain why there is a difference. If you can’t, is there really a difference?

  18. In this case, this is a world where orogeny is discriminated against, but other characteristics that often engender discrimination IRL are accepted.

    yeah perhaps I misused the word gratuitous. You’re suggesting the description IS necessary as a comparison or part of the worldbuilding …

    hmmm ok …. will have to think on it

  19. This is the first criticism I’ve seen that has used the Chekhov’s penis argument.

    is that going to be a thing now?

  20. @clif —

    You’re suggesting the description IS necessary as a comparison or part of the worldbuilding …

    It’s not “necessary” any more than a mention of left-handedness or blond hair is necessary. But such details help to create well-rounded characters and avoid cardboard-cutout syndrome.

  21. Well, the term “Chekhov’s Lesbian” was coined by Darren Garrison on File 770 in May 2016. As he put it:

    Chekhov’s Lesbian: if a character in fiction is portrayed as a member of a minority group, that character’s minority status must become a relevant plot point before the end of the story. (Term used sarcastically.)

    https://file770.com/?p=29059&cpage=3#comment-435579

  22. ok I give up and thanks for being gentle with me. I’ll think it over …. changes in ways of thinking generally come slow to me … but I usually get it in the end.

    just to reiterate … I liked the book very much. The scene in question didn’t kick me out of the story in any way … just made me wonder why it was relevant. I try to treat all people fairly and compassionately. I do my best not to judge (and often fail sadly). I can’t imagine why I would need to know someones sexual or gender preference. I thought that, considering the recent discussion on box checking, and that I noticed this scene in this well regarded book, that it would be a good entry for discussion.

  23. Cassy B on April 18, 2017 at 6:50 pm said:
    @11, that Superman cover makes Superman look like a terrorist…. Everyone is running away from him and screaming while he throws a car into a cliff…

    In the very first Superman story, he’s basically running around beating up corrupt factory owners and other authority figures. It’s been a few years since I read it so I can’t remmeber if that scene appears in the story, but there’s multiple moments where he uses his physical superiority to bully people into a more socially conscious path of behaviour.

    You can tell that Siegel and Schuster grew up poor and in a manipulated and abused underclass.

  24. I thought that, considering the recent discussion on box checking, and that I noticed this scene in this well regarded book, that it would be a good entry for discussion.

    because you know that this example is EXACTLY the kind of thing that puppies point to when they talk about box checking etc …

    part of the pleasure I got from reading this book was imagining someone like JCW reading the polyamory sex scenes … although I doubt that he got that far into the story.

  25. Rob Thornton

    Well, the term “Chekhov’s Lesbian” was coined by Darren Garrison on File 770 in May 2016. As he put it:

    Chekhov’s Lesbian: if a character in fiction is portrayed as a member of a minority group, that character’s minority status must become a relevant plot point before the end of the story. (Term used sarcastically.)

    More appropriate then for this argument, I googled and it seemed Chekhov’s penis has already been used to describe a penis that’s introduced in the first act and gets off in the third.

  26. Relative to innies, outies, and personal predilections for various combinations thereof…it strikes me as “box checking” if a feature has no impact on the story.

    If a character has a dragon tattooed upon their buttocks, but they never disrobe sufficiently for another character to see it, and if the tattoo has no cultural/social impact within the story (i.e. belonging to the Ancient Order of Dragon Butted Defenders), then it strikes me as “box checking”.

    The problem isn’t that the character shouldn’t exist. The problem is that the specific aspect of the character being described is not evident within any normal social interaction given the context of the story. Hair color (eyes, skin, fur, etc.) is something that can be seen by the average person on the street. Genitalia and other aspects of gender orientation…not so much.

    Regards,
    Dann

  27. Dann

    Relative to innies, outies, and personal predilections for various combinations thereof…it strikes me as “box checking” if a feature has no impact on the story

    Furry hobbit feet.

  28. @clif —

    I thought that, considering the recent discussion on box checking, and that I noticed this scene in this well regarded book, that it would be a good entry for discussion.

    IMHO this differs from “box-checking” in a coupla ways. First, in the objectionable sort of box-checking, we tend to get something like “Look! She’s got a gay sidekick! Isn’t it great that she’s got a gay sidekick! Isn’t it great that she’s cool with having a gay sidekick! Look, everyone, she’s gonna stand up to defend her gay sidekick from all comers, because of course her gay sidekick is weaker than she is and needs protection!” But in the case of Tonkee, it has nothing to do with anything like that. We notice that she’s getting a beard, we find out why she has a beard, and we find out that she is running out of her drugs because the apocalypse happened — just the same as we might find out that a diabetic was running out of insulin, or that someone with rheumatoid arthritis was running out of immune suppressants. She’s there, she’s an individual, and she’s dealing with the end of the world just like everyone else is.

    @Dann —

    The problem isn’t that the character shouldn’t exist. The problem is that the specific aspect of the character being described is not evident within any normal social interaction given the context of the story.

    You’re forgetting that the issue came up with Tonkee in the first place because she had a five-o’clock shadow. That’s very visible, and evident with any normal social interaction.

  29. Lol, seriously though if inconsequential details related to character development and world building are box checking then we’re going to need a bigger box.

  30. @clif: “I can’t imagine why I would need to know someones sexual or gender preference.”

    You must not read many stories where characters have love (or even lust) interests, then…

  31. @Contrarius

    Sorry. I was agreeing with clif’s specific observation. It was more of a general observation on box checking.

    I did recall that there was some context for the discovery of that aspect of Tonkee. It wasn’t the most adroit bit of character definition, but it fell short of box checking for me.

    Regards,
    Dann

  32. You’re forgetting that the issue came up with Tonkee in the first place because she had a five-o’clock shadow. That’s very visible, and evident with any normal social interaction.

    no actually here’s the scene no mention of the shadow (that comes a bit later)… p. 233

    hmmm can’t figure out how to link it … well anyway its when she bathes is the first mention of anything

  33. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Schnookums Von Fancypants

    EEE! I’m so giddy! You like me…you really like me!

  34. @clif:

    Is it when Essun notices Tonkee peeing? That was the first indication I remembered. Then as the story progresses we see the continued effects of the apocalypse as her beard begins growing.

  35. @clif —

    no actually here’s the scene no mention of the shadow (that comes a bit later)… p. 233

    I don’t have the text version (I usually do audio), so you could be right — and I can’t go to the text to be sure — but that isn’t the way I remember it.

  36. here it is … this is after Essun and Hoa follow Tonkee to her house from the water pump

    Fortunately it turns out that Tonkee did indeed bring all that water with her for a bath. She does this in front of you, shamelessly stripping down and squatting by a wooden basin to scrub at her pits and crotch and the rest. You are a little surprised to notice a penis somewhere amid this process, but, well, not like any comm’s going to make her a Breeder.

  37. @clif —

    here it is … this is after Essun and Hoa follow Tonkee to her house from the water pump

    And if Essun had noticed an insulin port instead, and we went on to see the effects of running out of insulin, would you also see that as gratuitous box-checking? Chekhov’s insulin pump?

  38. And if Essun had noticed an insulin port instead, and we went on to see the effects of running out of insulin, would you also see that as gratuitous box-checking? Chekhov’s insulin pump?

    ease up there pardner .. I’ve admitted your argument and agreed to think it over … although .. had it been an insulin port … I would have expected that to have some relevance to the plot. And of course insulin users don’t suffer from discrimination and hostility in our society so having a character with such a thing wouldn’t be remarkable and thus mentioning it would almost certainly have relevance.

  39. You must not read many stories where characters have love (or even lust) interests, then…

    hmm or maybe the nature of that love or lust isn’t the important thing for me … honestly I just don’t care who does what to whom with what. Perhaps true love transcends the gritty nuts and bolts of satisfying lust. I don’t know.

    Carrying this thought a bit further .. in the same story, there’s a description of three way sex with Essun (Syenite) Alabaster & Innon. I enjoyed that erotic scene very much not so much for the eroticism of it but rather that both Syenite and Alabaster finally got something they both desired (lusted for). YMM of course V.

  40. With the caveat that I have not read the book (soon! I promise!): There is also what it says about the POV character, that they notice Tonkee’s penis, and are surprised. And perhaps their choice to watch Tonkee bathe rather than turning their back or closing their eyes to give her at least the illusion of privacy, that may say something about the POV character as well. There is also the worldbuilding/development aspect of noting of her slim likelihood to be made a Breeder.

  41. oh so sorry Nicole! I did mention way back at the beginning that there would be spoilers .. I had no idea that the discussion would go on so long.

  42. @clif —

    ease up there pardner .. I’ve admitted your argument and agreed to think it over …

    Not an attack — I’m just trying to figure out where the boundaries of your concern lie.

    although .. had it been an insulin port … I would have expected that to have some relevance to the plot.

    Why? We’re back to character-building. Why does an element that builds roundness in a character have to affect the overall plot?

    And of course insulin users don’t suffer from discrimination and hostility in our society so having a character with such a thing wouldn’t be remarkable and thus mentioning it would almost certainly have relevance.

    Okay, this is a clue. You appear to only object to “gratuitous” descriptions when they signal a membership in a discriminated-against minority. Is that correct?

  43. Okay, this is a clue. You appear to only object to “gratuitous” descriptions when they signal a membership in a discriminated-against minority. Is that correct?

    I’m going to attempt to address this assuming that you’re playing fair with me.

    Box checking, as I understand it, is the inclusion of a character or characteristics for the sole purpose of appealing to some discriminated against minority. So to add a character or characteristics that have no seeming purpose to the plot or story for the sole purpose of appealing blah blah blah is, yes, gratuitous.

    Now, in this case, I noticed the description. And actually, doing a little research there’s other descriptions in the story as well … young Damaya notices a boy without a penis earlier in the story. Perhaps that I noticed and wondered about it is on me … maybe, as a straight white 58-year old male, I’ve read so many stories without characters like that … it jars when I see one. I’m trying hard to make no judgement about it … as I’ve said (twice) it had no effect on my liking for the story. But for better or worse, I DID notice, so … I opened this discussion.

    To answer your question … no I don’t think so. But maybe … and if so, then it’s on me to figure that out.

  44. I remember when the first black news anchor was hired by swedish television. There was mutterings everywhere, including from me (I was not the brightest kid in school). “They only hired her for her colour”, we said, instinctively conservative. “Box checking” was not a known word at that time, but we would have used it if head known it. Not long after they hired another coloured person for as an anchor for a childrens show. And we muttered a little bit. And then another and at that time we were so used to it that we had absolutely no idea why we should mutter about something so perfectly natural and logical.

    Maybe the people who hired her were box checking. Or perhaps they only thought that there should be some kind of representation from everyone. Maybe those are the same thing.

    And maybe authors now are box checking. Because for 70 years there were no transpeople in games or books and now there are. Maybe they are box checking. Or maybe they just want to have representation from everyone. Maybe those are the same.

    But I’ve been kind of used to transpeople in my life for several years now and having transpeople represented in books is something that gets less and less special everytime and it is nothing really to notice. Just as with people of colour being anchors on TV.

    It is only that it takes a bit longer for some people to get used to it and some people are more instinctively conservative than others.

  45. @clif —

    I’m going to attempt to address this assuming that you’re playing fair with me.

    It’s actually an interesting question to me. I hope we can agree that diversity is a Good Thing, and I hope we can agree that diversity is a normal part of life. So if people are diverse, when is including diverse characters “box-checking” and when is it simply acknowledging reality?

    Box checking, as I understand it, is the inclusion of a character or characteristics for the sole purpose of appealing to some discriminated against minority. So to add a character or characteristics that have no seeming purpose to the plot or story for the sole purpose of appealing blah blah blah is, yes, gratuitous.

    But people of discriminated-against minorities exist all over the place. Isn’t their inclusion simply an acknowledgment of reality? (And yes, referring back to previous posts, people with various disabilities and chronic ailments ARE discriminated against — so I don’t buy your argument about my hypothetical character with an insulin pump.)

    maybe, as a straight white 58-year old male, I’ve read so many stories without characters like that … it jars when I see one.

    I think this is really the main issue. Such characters have not been a part of our acknowledged literary reality in the past, or have only been included as sideshow curiosities — the Evil Fairy, the Perverted Cross-Dresser, the Devious Tranny, and so on. Much like the current situation with the Chechnyan government insisting that gay people don’t exist in their country, most literature tended to not admit that normal, everyday LGBT people existed in their stories and led normal lives just like everyone else. So when authors do start to include them, people notice.

    I’m trying hard to make no judgement about it … as I’ve said (twice) it had no effect on my liking for the story. But for better or worse, I DID notice, so … I opened this discussion.

    Right. And I think this is the same general sort of thing as unconscious or socially ingrained racism. For instance: I’m a Southerner. I’ve lived south of the Mason-Dixon line for 48 years of my life. I’m also a liberal (in case you hadn’t noticed). Nonetheless, I acknowledge that I am frequently, thoughtlessly racist. I notice mix-raced couples, I notice black guys wearing do-rags, I notice “Ebonics”. Such things don’t speak well of me, but I think to some extent it’s impossible to grow up in a society without absorbing many of the socially accepted norms of that society.

    So I think it’s a great thing when authors do include diverse characters without forcing them to justify their contributions to a plot. They’re just people, just as much as anyone else. They’re just living their lives. And the more we see of them, the more our ingrained prejudices will be worn away.

    eta — Ha. What Hampus said!

Comments are closed.