By Robert Silverberg: It’s folly to think that denials can ever catch up with falsehoods and distortions, and so up till now I have refrained from attempting to defend myself against the accusations that have been aimed at me since shortly after the San Jose Worldcon. But now the situation has reached a new level of unreality that leads me to break my silence.
At San Jose, the Best Novel Hugo went — for the third consecutive year — to a writer who used her acceptance speech to denounce those who had placed obstacles in her path stemming from her race and sex as she built her career, culminating in her brandishing her new Hugo as a weapon aimed at someone who had been particularly egregious in his attacks on her. Soon after the convention, I commented, in a private chat group, that I felt that her angry acceptance speech had been a graceless one, because I believe that Hugo acceptance speeches should be occasions for gratitude and pleasure, not angry statements that politicize what should be a happy ceremony. I said nothing about her race, her sex, or the quality of her books. My comment was aimed entirely at her use of the Hugo stage to launch a statement of anger.
I would not presume to comment on her experience of having had racist and sexist obstacles placed in her career path. I have no doubt that she did face such challenges, and I’m sure the pain created by them still lingers. I in no way intended to add to that pain. However, it seemed to me that this writer, after an unprecedented three-Hugo sweep and considerable career success otherwise, had triumphed over whatever obstacles were placed in her path and need not have used the Hugo platform to protest past mistreatment.
An unscrupulous member of our chat group illicitly posted my comment on the web site of someone who has indeed devoted himself to harsh racist attacks on this and other writers, and from that moment on — guilt by association, I suppose — I was denounced on the Internet as a racist, a sexist, and perhaps a lot of other dire things. (I do not participate in social media and all I know of what is being said about me has come from third parties.)
I am not a racist. I am not a sexist. In a career spanning many decades, I have generally been known among my colleagues and in fandom for my professionalism, my courtesy to people great and small, and my helpfulness. And, though I hesitate to evoke a version of the old anti-Semitic cliche, “Some of my best friends are Jews,” I have in fact maintained warm friendships with several of the (very few) black science fiction writers of my era, and I have numerous friends of the other sex as well, who can testify that the epithets that have been hurled at me are undeserved.
Now Marta Randall, a friend of many years’ standing, has asserted in File 770** that I have a history of sexism as an editor stretching back over the years, declaring that when she and I were co-editors of the annual anthology NEW DIMENSIONS she had proposed an all-female issue of the book, and I had threatened to remove my name from it if she did.
I have no recollection of this episode. I think that editors have the privilege of excluding any group they wish from their anthologies — men, women, Jews, Christians, Bulgarians, atheists, whatever. I don’t think that’s a particularly good idea, though, except where the anthology’s intent is one of special pleading — as, for instance, an anthology intended to demonstrate the excellence of Canadian science fiction and therefore limited only to Canadian writers. (But Jack Dann’s two WANDERING STARS anthologies, limited to stories on Jewish themes, included four stories by writers who were not themselves Jewish.)
NEW DIMENSIONS, which I edited for ten years, was intended to provide the best in science fiction as I understood “best.” I had no intention of judging submissions by any standard except literary quality: I paid no attention to the race or color of the authors who sent me stories. In fact the first issue of NEW DIMENSIONS had four stories by women in it, and most of the others had at least two or three female contributors, with the lone exception of the fourth issue, which had none. I see no evidence here of systematic editorial discrimination against women.
Eventually I wearied of the work involved in editing NEW DIMENSIONS, and, since Marta Randall had been a frequent contributor (four stories in the ten issues) and her novels then were being published by Pocket Books, which was also the publisher of NEW DIMENSIONS, I suggested to Marta and her Pocket Books editor, David Hartwell, that she take my place as editor of the anthology. To help maintain the book’s commercial viability, I suggested a three-book transition: the eleventh issue would list Robert Silverberg and Marta Randall as editors, the twelfth would be billed as “Edited by Marta Randall and Robert Silverberg,” and from the thirteenth issue on she would be listed as the sole editor. This proposal was accepted and Marta was given a three-book contract. I was not a party to the contract and was co-editor in name only; she picked all the stories and did all the other editorial work. Issues eleven and twelve duly appeared with the editors’ names listed as agreed. She had three stories by women in the eleventh issue and three in the twelfth, about the same male/female ratio as I had maintained during my editorial tenure. I understand that the thirteenth issue was prepared and then canceled before publication, for reasons that I don’t know.
As I said, I have no recollection of Marta’s having suggested an all-female issue. If she had, I probably would have said that I didn’t think it was a wise thing to do, since NEW DIMENSIONS had established itself over a decade as a generalized anthology without any special agenda other than to publish good science fiction, and this would have broken its continuity of policy. I would have said the same thing if she had proposed an all-male issue, an all-Uzbek issue, an all-fantasy issue, or any other kind of all-anything issue, because I wanted ND to remain something recognizably like what it had been under my auspices. I think the book would have died otherwise. This does not make me a sexist. I would not in any case have threatened to remove my name from the book — an empty threat, since under the terms of the original arrangement my name was already due to be removed as of the third issue she would edit.
As for my alleged lifetime of sexism, I offer as evidence an anthology I edited called THE CRYSTAL SHIP, published in 1976 by Thomas Nelson. This was an instance when I chose deliberately to construct a book with all-female contributors, in order to make a specific point about the changing nature of the science-fiction field. It contains three original novellas, commissioned by me, by Joan D. Vinge, Vonda N. McIntyre, and…Marta Randall. You will notice that all three are women, and in my introduction to the book I observed that although for a long time there had been only a handful of female science-fiction writers, the 1970s had seen an abundance of them appear. “Which is all to the good,” I wrote. “Men and women are different not merely in physical appearance; they receive different cultural training from earliest childhood, and their ways of interpreting experience, of human situations, of perceiving the universe, often differ in ways growing directly out of those differences….Science fiction is no longer so universally unisexual, for which let us rejoice. To be female is, I think, neither better nor worse than to be male, but it is different, it is beyond doubt different, and the difference has value for us all.”
These are not, I think, the words of a sexist. Nor can anyone produce evidence of my alleged racism. I have lived on into an age where it is terribly easy to offend people, intentionally or accidentally, and the Internet makes it possible for them to register their state of offendedness all over the world. But I am troubled by the Internet comments of people who do not know me, have misread my statement on the Hugo event, and attribute to me beliefs that I do not hold.
Endnote: ** Silverberg refers to Pixel Scroll 11/17/18 which linked to Adam-Troy Castro’s post on Facebook and also ran a screencap of Marta Randall’s comment on Adam-Troy Castro’s post.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Pingback: Pixel Scroll 11/28/18 When The Pixeling Gets Tough, The Tough Get Scrolling | File 770
Atsiko: If Mike wants to emphasize that his is a news site, he could *link to* a statement by Silverberg. The idea that he would directly host a furtherance of the man’s entitled and simultaneously ignorant grumpiness so that Silverberg wouldn’t feel unfairly chastised for his bad behavior seems a bit silly to me.
That isn’t the reason Mike gave for hosting this post. He’s hosting it because he’s willing to host any discussion germane to SFF with the exception of comments of the vile, disgusting, or libelous sort. If Silverberg really wanted more real estate in which to keep digging that chasm he already had going, Mike was willing to let him have it (though I suspect that there was a fair bit of facepalming going on chez Maison 770, even as he did so).
And I totally disagree with you. I’m a big believer that sunlight — and lots of it — is the best disinfectant. Silverberg doesn’t have a blog or participate in social media. If his post hadn’t been hosted here, it probably would have been somewhere where I and most other people couldn’t see (such as the Fictionmags listserv, which seems to be an environment where this sort of viewpoint is endorsed by the majority of participants).
Instead, Silverberg’s post, and those of his defenders, are out here in public, where everyone can see him explaining why he isn’t racist or sexist in a post which says racist and sexist things. They can see for themselves his artful, carefully-worded disdain and contempt for Jemisin, Randall, and POC and women in general.
Silverberg and his defenders have taken a well-reasoned, resounding bollicking here in the comments — and everyone can see that, too.
Mike was well aware when he agreed to post Silverberg’s message that he was not doing him any favors. I think Mike has done everyone else a favor by agreeing to post it here where we can read it and comment on it (and refer back to it later, when the inevitable denials ensue).
Dear Anna,
Neither am I (fond of the insincere apology). Wasn’t recommending it, rather pointing out that of all the strategies Bob could pick to improve his reputation — which, it appears, is all he is concerned about — he went for just about the worst. IOW, tailoring the argument to the recipient.
Not that I think it’s likely to penetrate, even if he reads it.
pax / Ctein
It’s sad if we’ve reached the point where no one can ever say, “I support your cause, but I think what you’re doing right now isn’t helping” without immediately being attacked as a bigot. More than once I can remember gently telling my straight friends (who worried that activism would prompt an anti-gay backlash), “I appreciate your concern, but I think we know what we’re doing.” Again, thinking like an activist, you really want to hold onto your friends and allies when you’re a small minority and your real enemies want to do away with you entirely.
I don’t understand how you can’t see that you’re contradicting yourself here. As another gay man of a certain age, while I appreciate Silverberg’s past attempts about being less homophobic that some of his contemporaries, I also see that all of us who are criticizing him are saying, exactly, “I appreciate your concern, but I think she knows what she’s doing… and you clearly don’t.”
We aren’t saying anything binary. He is. And absolutely nothing that he said can be construed by anyone as being “I support your cause…”
Pingback: A Note on Robert Silverberg | shattersnipe: malcontent & rainbows
Yeah, Mike did everyone a public service by posting this here. Even Silverberg. Maybe he’ll learn something. Maybe.
#sayhername
My two cents here is that Mike was well within journalistic guidelines in letting Mr. Silverberg have his say, kind of a response in the letters and op ed section, and in doing so it satisfies balance.
Man, I’m impressed by the commenters here. You are all bright and cogent humans. At least I think you’re all humans.
I think one of the things Silverberg might be bumping up against is the old feeling that being called a racist is (in some circles) the worst thing you can call someone. If your mental image of racism is the Klan, and cross burnings, and violence–if it’s the boogeyman that we learned about in middle school history class–than you have trouble seeing yourself in that mental image when someone calls you on it. To Silverberg (in his conscious mind, anyway), racism is evil. He is not evil, therefore he can’t be racist.
But racism isn’t just Klan violence, not anymore (not that it was ever only that). He was raised in a racist country and culture. Of course that leaked into his head, in spite of his best intentions and knowledge that Racism=Bad. You can be a racist and not be a terrible person. Most white Americans are both racist and also perfectly normal people. We have to get over this idea of the Klan boogeyman as our internal picture for what racism looks like, because otherwise we’ll never make any progress at getting people to admit that they did something racist, that their impact was different than their intent, and apologize for it, and look at how their actions fit into their cultural and historical environment, and try to not do that again. He has a lot of self worth invested in his image of himself as not a bad guy. I’ve seen this play out over and over.
@Becca: “You are all bright and cogent humans. At least I think you’re all humans.”
Well, I convinced an entire summer camp that I was from Mars for two weeks, so…
@Steven desJardins
It’s possible that I’m still preoccupied with 1985. 🙂
To me, “conservatives” will always be those people who thought gay people deserved to die from AIDS. The ones who always made a big distinction between us and “innocent victims.” I lost my entire cohort of friends during the AIDS epidemic. I used to be able to rattle off 16 names . . .
I don’t think about it a lot anymore, but this is probably something one never gets over. We listened to the sound track of Les Miz the other day, and I burst into tears during “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.”
Have modern conservatives changed? Maybe, but their worship of Donald Trump doesn’t inspire confidence.
@Rev. Bob: Alan Mendelsohn, is that you? How’s the pixel supply in “the Bronx”?
Comments on comments on comments. Many by people not posting using their real names.
I want to clarify the membership of Fictionmags. Although it does indeed have about 200 members—I think the current count is 179—very few of them actually comment or post there; maybe less than 20. I am one of them, and perhaps post more than many others.
Some of the news things I post there, I also post to Mike for F770, and to other news sites and individuals.
I know that Silverberg has not seen the comments here. He never reads F770, nor, I believe, any other social media. He is, after all, in his 80s, and has recovered from two heart attacks (that I know of).
@Becca
I used to say something like that too: “All of us were raised to be racists, and there’s no way to completely escape it. The question isn’t whether you’re a racist–it’s how you deal with it.” In particular, it means you don’t trust your gut reaction to a lot of things.
But in the era of Trump, I no longer think it’s helpful to say “we’re all a little bit racist.” We’ve discovered that a big chunk of the country are a whole LOT racist. What Trump followers are doing is utterly different from anything we do–consciously or unconsciously.
We do still need a way to tell people that what they’re doing is unhelpful, but we need to do it without equating them with Trump or Beale. That probably means being a lot more careful with words like “racism.”
Foz Meadows has a good blog post deconstructing this.
I refuse not to call a racist act a racist act, just because it wasn’t Klan level racism. And all those little acts feed into the bigger acts, so cutting off the littler cases *is* going to have an effect on the bigger ones. A person telling a bad “Mexicans” joke at work gives another person the idea their thoughts about immigration aren’t that “out there”. That person expressing those thoughts on a comment forum leads to another person speculating about what to do to “fix” the problem. Someone else points to that as evidence “the people” are against these asylum seekers.
Does the one joke about Mexicans actually cause people to get tear gassed at the border? Obviously not. But it provides cover.
Does one Silverberg foot-in-mouth equate to one VD? Obviously not. Does one VD equate to someone who walks into a black church and starts shooting? Obviously not. But again, we know there is nonetheless a link where the lesser crimes provide support and succor to the greater. VD was pleased to be able to point to *mainstream* Silverberg as proof he isn’t himself that “out there”. And VD in turn is someone even worse people listen to while formulating their own ideas what should be done.
Call out Silverberg, de-normalize his racist side by calling it racist, and VD no longer gets to point to someone “normal and mainstream” and say they share many ideas.
What word would you prefer?
@Andrew Porter
Perhaps you wrote this:
Without having noticed Mike write this:
@Becca: “I think one of the things Silverberg might be bumping up against is the old feeling that being called a racist is (in some circles) the worst thing you can call someone.”
It’s not? There’s nothing worse in my close circles. As bad, but not worse.
Andrew Porter: I am not really seeing what point you are trying to make? Is it to clarify the status of the fictionmags forums? Accomplished, but also with many additional words which are not even close to germane. Is it to criticize the people here for discussing “behind Silverberg’s back?” It is an open forum, and his opportunity to read is no different from any other’s. Is it to try and say something about the commentariat here? If so, it is couched so vaguely as to be opaque. Is it to try and tell us *not* to talk amongst ourselves? If so, it is absurd.
Silverbob is free to read the comments here or not as he prefers. That is very much his right. He wished his side be posted; if to him that is the end of the discussion, so be it. If he wishes to read further response to his words and I hope learn something from it, also excellent. We all have limited time on our hands, and must choose where and how we spend our reading time, our physical energy and our desire to learn. (If he does not wish to read these comments but does wish to read, there is an excellent and fairly recent trilogy he might wish to peruse — at least as far as to the end of the first book…)
Treating the word racist as if someone can only be racist if they are the most vile of human beings… strikes me as very similar to the geek social fallacy where a person can’t possibly be the kind of man who gropes women and *also* be that really good GM or that amazing pro writer or the guy who gave you a couch to crash on when you lost your apartment.
And it leads to the same kind of pretzel logic in defending a person from their own victims.
Everybody stop what you’re doing and go read the Foz Meadows essay that Bonnie linked. It’s fantastic and worthy of its own front page link here.
I know. Ain’t it great? You can still be a participant here if there are reasons that you can’t use your real name, such as a job it puts at risk, domestic violence situation or other harassment. You don’t have to leave the community to people like us who are fortunate to be able to use our names without such concerns.
You can also have a cool name like Camestros Felapton, so far superior to “Rogers Cadenhead” that it makes me upset with my mother.
The Foz Meadows piece that Bonnie McDaniel links above puts this particularly well IMO:
In re: Very detailed comments about why calling someone racist isn’t really the sort of insult that feels like a knife in the heart: “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
@John
I don’t know if it’s that so much as an ugly trend I see from some conservative commenters: To be labeled as racist is worse than actually being racist.
That doesn’t seem like a subtle distinction to me, but over and over again I see people kicking up their heels over hearing the word, instead of stopping and thinking that there might be a bit of a point in the word’s use, and doing some self-reflection.
Someone was asking if I had any posts to share, but, as an aside, I was digging through my indexed and searchable database for fictionmags and discovered this not-so-subtle warning to certain members from yours truly: “There does seem to be a running thread of misogyny and sexism in various places, public and private, and I imagine it’s been rather disheartening to any number of people. I would simply advise not to post anything private here or anywhere else that you aren’t willing to see public. You don’t know who might be reading these posts, after all.”—Sean, Fictionmags, July 2013. At the time, the moderators poo-poo’ed the idea, implying that the “chums” were basically as thick as thieves, and we would never post anything outside the mailing list to embarrass any one individual or even the group. Perish the thought, of course. Which explains why a lot of questionable behavior is allowed to flourish and never punished or condoned. And why there has been quite a few departures over the years from the group, including quite a few high-profile editors. So it goes. Their best bet is to eventually nuke the entire mailing list (and its archives) from orbit, if they don’t want history to evaluate them poorly, afterwards. Not that I think they care, either way.
@Bonnie McDaniel: “I don’t know if it’s that so much as an ugly trend I see from some conservative commenters: To be labeled as racist is worse than actually being racist.”
That’s true, if the question is how it makes you feel. Being called a racist is a very painful experience. At least, it always has been for me. Being a racist? That doesn’t seem to bother racists at all. Some of them like it well enough to organize their lives around it. It’s profitable and rewarding.
I’m sure sorry-ass sophists–pardon me! conservative commentators–mean something else by it, but they’re sorry-ass sophists, so who cares what they say?
@John
Being called a racist is a very painful experience.
Yes, of course. However, it seems to me that it still comes down to how one looks at the situation. It’s better if an individual is able (after some time passes, perhaps) to take a step back and look at what happened not from the inwardly focused, injured viewpoint of I was called such-and-such, but rather the outwardly focused stance of Does the person who said this see something about me I’m not seeing?
It’s hard to do this. It requires humility and a deliberate decision to not take being called such-and-such personally, but rather be determined to learn from it.
John A. Arkansawyer: Consider that many of the people who decry being called racist are the same people who also defend being allowed to use the N-word about blacks, the C-word about women, R____ about people with mental disabilities, and a wide variety of other actual flat out slurs for other groups, and complain that those slurs should be words they are allowed to use and damn the consequences if someone is hurt by it. Yet those eminently defensible, in their minds, slurs are assaulting people based on traits they inherited from birth which do not reflect on the positive or negative nature of the person addressed, where the utterly indefensible, in their mind, “racist” is based only and entirely on actual *hurtful behaviour*.
Then consider which company you want to keep.
Also, I reject the concept that explaining is always a losing proposition, but I am struggling to even formulate a reply beyond the extremely unhelpful in the time I am allowing myself before getting back to work. Perhaps someone else can.
@Bonnie McDaniel, Lenora Rose: I can make the same sort of explanation you just did. It doesn’t change the pain I feel when I’m called a racist. (I think. It’s been a while.) And I have an understanding of the issues much like the one you two have. Do you expect it to go easier for someone without that understanding?
By the way, this is the company I keep. Accept no substitutes:
I will, I think, be the third member of the fictionmags group — after Todd Mason and Andy Porter — to comment here. It is, believe it or not, a group devoted to discussing popular fiction magazines and, more widely, popular fiction. It has a number of distinguished writers, editors, critics and others among its membership, and I think Andy underestimates the number of regular posters — more like 40 to 50 than 20, though certainly a minority of those enrolled. It’s a fairly international group too, with many members from the UK, Europe, Australia and further afield.
Sean Wallace used to be a member, but flounced out in a huff several years ago. The group he describes is not the one I know: the portrait he paints is simply untrue.
I have learned a great deal as a member of the group, about subjects I had thought I knew quite a lot about. It is also easily the most civil of any group I have ever participated in. Certainly there are members I disagree with, and members whose posts I don’t read, but they are a small minority. To imply, as Sean Wallace does, that the whole group is toxic is as foolish as it would be to judge File 770 by the most stupid or extreme comments.
@Becca: ” We have to get over this idea of the Klan boogeyman as our internal picture for what racism looks like, because otherwise we’ll never make any progress at getting people to admit that they did something racist”
A timely comment which reminds me of
an article I read just yesterday, though it’s actually several months old
JAA – ” It doesn’t change the pain I feel when I’m called a racist. (I think. It’s been a while.) And I have an understanding of the issues much like the one you two have. Do you expect it to go easier for someone without that understanding?”
If being called a racist is such a surprise to you or any other white person born in the US that it is actively painful, then you have not only been ridiculously shallow in your self assessment, but you have failed to understand the wide gulf between the experience of POC and white people.
Axlotl, fair point about privileged groups. Apparently my use of the phrase “lovely people” didn’t sufficiently convey sarcasm.
I would feel hurt being called a racist, too (well, except when called it by a white supremacist attempting DARVO) — because I strive hard not to be one. But my reaction to being called one would be to retreat and consider my actions once more… not to attempt to inflate myself up and deny with no genuine self reflection. And likely not to say anything public until I was sure of myself, which would likely include requesting a check-in from others less me — and less white if at all possible without asking too much emotional labour.
I have also been spending a lot of online time listening to BIPOC about racism, and I admit that watching how they use the word has blunted some of the effect, in that I understand – innately, not merely intellectually – that the call of racism does not equate me with the, um, active and deliberate white supremacist groups, so much as with the inevitable failings of a privileged person who retains some blind spots.
Although Foz Meadows did already offer an example of how to differentiate, when saying of Silverberg that he
WRT micro-aggressions and unconscious bias:
Last weekend when the regime decided that tear gassing toddlers was a good look, one of the apparatchiks of the security ministry was attempting to minimize the effects of tear gas by making a statement: “it’s perfectly safe — you could put it on your nachos and eat it.”
Now, as an exercise for the reader, compare and contrast that statement to:
“It’s perfectly safe — you could put it on your Cheerios and eat it.”
And ask yourself what picture you have in your head for each sentence.
@Cheryl S: “If being called a racist is such a surprise to you”
I’m surprised you suggested I was surprised by it. I didn’t say that nor did I imply it.
If you called me a racist, I’d shrug it off, knowing as I do what you mean by it. If I fell into a septic tank and you called me smelly, I’d shrug that off, too.
But when an ordinary person whose understanding is “racist=active bigot” calls me that, why yes, it hurts to be called an active bigot. And since that is the most common understanding of “racist” in ordinary language rather than the meaning of “racist” as a term of art, that’s how I’m probably going to take it.
I’ve not heard specific criticisms of Silverberg (or just missed them). His letter suggests that accusations of misogynistic editing (at the broadest level) against him are baseless. Of course, individuals might have had personal interactions with him I’m unfamiliar with, which might indicate otherwise. That’s a whole other discussion.
Anyhow. Silverberg’s letter and the debate it stirred prompted me to write this little essay about SF and change:
Yes, all this recent controversy in the field has been hugely disruptive. But change is always disruptive, and if nothing else Science Fiction is the literature of change, not only reflecting and projecting scientific, technological, and cultural change, but also itself ever-changing.
All we need do is look back over the generational changes from Proto-SF, through the Pulp Era, the Golden Age, the thematic and literary growth of the Sociological SF period, the New Wave, the 70s diversification and novel-heavy period, Cyberpunk, the New Space Opera, the New Weird, and now the explosion of non-Anglo speculative fiction that’s finally seeing print in the US and elsewhere.
What’s next? Something great I bet, and certain to be different, reflecting our genre’s heritage of incorporating change at our core so what we produce continues to be true to expressing the human condition experiencing change. And not just surviving it, but finding new ways to thrive.
To be true to what SF has always been and continues to be – that is, to remain relevant – our community of writers, editors, readers, scholars, and everyone else who cares about the genre must embrace change and guide the genre into an ever-changing future. If not, we’ll end up a historical footnote. Thankfully, I’m confident that won’t happen.
Why? Because I contend that what we’ve recently seen in geek subcultures reflects larger cultural changes:
First came Gamergate, which ended with the Gamergaters losing face and much of their influence. Because the vast majority of gamers can’t stand playing with jerks – and most game companies don’t want to be associated with them – the gaming community voted with their dollars and creativity against hate.
Then the Rabid Puppies yelped onto science fiction headlines. They tried to erase women, LGBTQ folks, people of color, non-Anglos, and others they see as “not real SF” people from the genre. But the majority of SF readers defeated them so bad in the first year that most Hugo Award voters preferred “No Award” over permitting any nominee forced into their laps by bigots, racists, and women-haters. We’re still feeling the repercussions of this, but we’ll soon see things settle down.
Now the broader #metoo and social justice movements are exposing the misogynists, white supremacists, and other hate- and fear-driven people (which studies show represent only 6% of US citizens) who would steal this country (and others) from the majority of decent people who only want to help each other build a stronger, healthier place to live, and a better future for our children. And not just in the USA! Sure, politics at its highest levels – exemplified by the kleptocrats in the US Capitol, Kremlin, and elsewhere – seem to have the upper hand and support from the screaming bigots, but the recent US election demonstrates that most people reject egocentrism, hate, and regressive politics. I predict we’ll see them fail soon, too, just like the Gamergaters and Rabid Puppies.
Those who some derogatorily call “Social Justice Warriors” might come across as intolerant of intolerance. To which I say, Good! We must never tolerate hate. The 1960s Hippies proved you can’t fight actual, literal Nazis with flowers and free love. It took a devastating world war to stop them last time. The social-justice movement is far from militarized; it’s only tools are persuasion and cooperation. Do they sometimes come across as angry, even irrational? Who wouldn’t, especially for those who’ve spent a lifetime suffering bigotry, hate, and violence, without comfort from their own communities or government!
I only hope this current rise of the extremist Right fails before we’re forced to endure another dystopian period: Look what it took to defeat the Third Reich. The repercussions of correcting that misstep were horrors beyond most of our imagining. And in regards to this particular conversation, it ended up starving the roots of SF’s Golden Age, ending that blossoming period and throwing the next SFnal generation into an era of despair centered around the New Wave’s metaphor of entropy. I mean, everything has worked out for SF, and it’s become much more diverse in terms of race, gender, and other cultural representation, but that was a difficult period.
Justice and freedom always prevail. Eventually, and always. Sometimes the transition is quick and (relatively) painless. Other times it’s brutal and wrecks everything for a while.
But I believe in humankind’s resilience and basic redeemable nature, that most of us want what’s best for the future.
At its best and most admirable, Science Fiction is the same. We’re going through some rough change right now, and many of our most-respected core creators and editors are suffering because of it (some needlessly, and also some because they’ve not grown as human beings and deserve to be called out). I admire and respect those with the greatest cultural privilege who’ve responded to criticism with grace, accepted the errors of their ways, and seek to improve themselves.
Change, adapt, grow: That’s why humankind remains the dominant life-form on Earth. And it’s why I believe SF is the dominant literary form and mode for expressing the human condition encountering change – not just surviving, but thriving as we, ourselves, change.
(References in a follow-up post.)
These statements by Mr. Silverberg jumped out at me,
and I wanted to comment on them, but I’m late to the party and Becca beat me to it.
Racist and sexist as nouns, not adjectives.
That’s how I remember being taught about racism and sexism — they’re bad, obviously, but we were shown examples so over-the-top that it seemed only a villain could believe or do such things. It becomes something external to fight against– those Racists and Sexists, whoever they are — rather than something internal to deal with. That leads to the hole Mr. Silverberg is digging — it’s impossible to take criticism of one’s words as racist without hearing an accusation that one is A Racist. And how dare you call me a villain!
I’m not trying to excuse him. Just offering an explanation, that makes sense to me, of why he’s reacting the way he is. I eventually came to terms with the idea that I always have biases to be on guard against and that I will sometimes be called out on them. Hopefully Mr. Silverberg will figure it out.
References for my little essay:
1) A good introduction to Gamergate:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-alt-right-hate-trump
2) Thoughts about the Sad and Rabid Puppies and their assault on the Hugo Award:
https://mckitterick.tumblr.com/post/127419421820
3) The Extremist Right-Wing only represents 6% of Americans:
http://fortune.com/2018/10/22/far-right-americans-just-six-person-study-says/
4) Paralleling the Rabid Puppies and Extremist Right-Wing:
https://mckitterick.tumblr.com/post/149385318415
@John Arkansawyer:
Is “racist” really the worst thing someone can be called in your circles, or are you overlooking worse things that you’re confident nobody would call you, or that nobody would believe about you? If someone accused me of murder or child abuse, I would deny it hotly, and I would know they were wrong. (The question there would be, was it deliberate slander or did they confuse me with someone else?)
If someone accused me of racism, I would ask why they said that. The person might be wrong, or I might have inadvertently said or done something racist: I try not to, but assuming that I cannot do anything racist might be good for my ego, but it wouldn’t help me avoid racism. (My goal, at least, is to do good, and avoid evil, not to get away with bad things because I’ve been labeled as one of the good people.)
From another angle–“racist” is an accusation that, true or false, would be painful, but it wouldn’t have me concerned about my safety: it’s not a threat the way “bitch” or the n word shouted from a car can be..
@Vicki Rosenzweig: “Is ‘racist’ really the worst thing someone can be called in your circles…?”
Although I didn’t say it was, it’s a good question. It depends on the circle. In some of them, it’s among the worst. In a few of them, I’d say it rates above murderer* but below child abuser. In others, it’s just one more bad thing. There are a few–work-related, for instance–in which it’s not ever said. I can’t say about those.
It wouldn’t worry me about my safety, either. I think. I can imagine a situation in which it would, but I can’t imagine being in that situation. Of course, I didn’t say it did.
*I once met one of the guys who blew up Army Math in Madison and killed that grad student. I’d rather be him than an active bigot.
Exactly – we’re all to some amount racist, having grown up in a racist civilization. Same deal for sexist and all the other stuff we’ve culturally inherited from prior generations.
If someone accuses me of being racist, it’s my duty to examine my attitudes and actions and correct them, not defend myself. That’s how we grow as human beings. That’s how human civilization grows.
@ Malcolm: It actually doesn’t take a large number of people to make a mailing list or a group to be labelled toxic . . . just a lot of bad apples who are louder than the rest. (You saw that with the Asimov’s/Analog forums, sff.net/sfwa, and more.) However, FM has been like this for years, to the extent that lots of modern industry people left, including Neil Clarke, Rich Horton, the VanderMeers, along with many others, over how issues of racism/sexism were routinely dealt with, on FM, if at all. That doesn’t even engage with the “wink wink” behavior of the moderators who rountinely cheered people on or looked the other way. So it goes.
@JAA:
(Emphasis mine.) Uh, yeah, you did say that:
Again, emphasis mine – and speaking personally, I can think of many worse things people could call me than “racist.” Murderer, child abuser, cannibal, and rapist are easy examples, but for something closer to the mark in terms of personality traits, I’d suggest liar or scammer or dishonorable.
@Rev Bob: Thank you for the correction!
@Vicki Rosenzweig: I had somehow forgotten I said that. Thank you again for asking the question; my apologies for answering with partially false information.
This is not Silverberg’s first go-round by a long shot. He was the instigating force behind the ridiculous petition to SFWA over the Bulletin, a petition that was mostly a complaint about feminism. As far as Silverberg is concerned, a black woman author is not supposed to talk like that about the world or the industry if it annoys him, and nobody is supposed to be upset if he gets caught spewing prejudiced crap about it.
He should apologize to Jemisin. Not that she cares, but he should. And he should apologize to Randall too. But that would sacrifice his sense of self.
I agree that Meadows’ piece on it is well worth reading. (She’s much calmer than I am about it.)
I think the problem is not that people see “racist” as the worst thing they can be called.
The problem is that a significant number of people have decided that calling someone a racist is more vile, and indeed more racist, than openly doing or saying even explicitly racist things. I.e., it is treated as shockingly unacceptable behavior to call people out for even the most open racism, while the racism itself should be politely ignored.
This may or may not resemble anything done by commenters here, perhaps especially not the ones participating in this part of the discussion. In 6938, we still struggle to explain these things clearly, and to not accidentally say things that were really not what we meant.
@Lis: “it is treated as shockingly unacceptable behavior to call people out for even the most open racism, while the racism itself should be politely ignored.”
(Reply to be read with a sense of cynical sarcasm, directed at the people who believe this and not at Lis.)
Of course it is. After all, a charge of racism is a stain on the honor and status of a Very Fine Person, while actual racism only affects… well, those people, who obviously don’t matter nearly so much, if in fact they matter at all.
Dear Lenore,
Oh, hear hear!
I am so very sick of the perpetually promulgated lie that being prejudiced is the same as being a mustache-twirling Incarnation of evil. It’s a lie promulgated by both extremes because it serves them each well and in opposition. The leftish motivation is obvious; on the right, it gives people who express prejudice cover by being able to respond with, “But I can’t be X, I am kind to orphans and children, work at a soup kitchen three days a week, and have never said an unkind word to any of my neighbors.” Since they are not a “bad person,” they obviously can’t be prejudiced.
It’s not true, it’s never been true. Most of us who are prejudiced in one way or another — which happens to be MOST OF US — are not Disney villains, not even particularly bad persons. Until everyone accepts that, they’re living in a state of denial.
~~~~
Dear Greg,
You don’t realize it but you are way off topic. The fact that Bob wrote a book that wasn’t heterosexist over 40 years ago has absolutely zero to do with the current conversation. First because standards change. The average liberal, even cutting edge progressive attitudes towards gender prejudice in 1970 would not mark you as anything like liberal, today, almost half a century later! (I’m a 69-year-old Californian queer, so I’m talking experience not history.)
In addition, you’re not addressing whether he made sexist, racist, or any other kind of prejudicial remark. All you’re saying is that as far as you’re concerned, he wasn’t heterosexist half a century ago. Holding one kind of prejudice has nothing to do with holding another.
Further, you’re conflating the book with its author. I’m not saying that he was heterosexist in 1970, I’m saying that you’ve decided the novel is the author, and that is so often not the case.
And finally, see preceding remark to Lenore.
~~~~
Dear John,
I have a surefire way of telling whether someone who makes a prejudicial remark wants to hang onto their prejudice or not. When they say something that you hear as prejudicial and you call them on it, do they respond with “Why do you say that?” or “No it wasn’t, couldn’t possibly be, because I’m…”
The former doesn’t mean they’ll agree with your assessment. Or that you were correct in your assessment. But they’re recognizing that it’s possible and that there is room for improvement (see preceding comment to Greg about standards changing with time).
If what you get is the pure defensive deflection, well… yup, they are, and they’re not planning on doing anything about it.
Also, see preceding remark to Lenore. MOST people who are prejudiced in one way or another are not otherwise horrid people and of course it hurts them to be told they are doing something bad.
That’s not on you, it’s on them.
If you feel pain when someone calls you a racist, evaluate why you are being called a racist. If it’s not in response to anything you said or did and they don’t even know you, just a drive-by “Oh look, there’s a white guy, he’s a racist.” Ignore it. That’s not about you. If it’s anybody you are engaged with for any reason on any level, suck it up and find out if maybe there’s a good reason for them saying that.
It’s not about whether they really know you, it’s about how you behaved.
And, yes, it’s much more productive to confront someone with, “That came across as a racist remark,” than “You are a racist,” but if they choose to focus on the characterization, they are choosing to not pay attention to the cause.
– pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. Dragon Dictate in training! ]
======================================
— Ctein’s Online Gallery. http://ctein.com
— Digital Restorations. http://photo-repair.com
======================================
Foz Meadows’ summation is a shorter version of some of the other good, thoughtful comments made here by Lenore, Vicki, and others:
Silverberg is in the doghouse, not because he’s being viewed as a monster, but because he made an ignorant, hurtful comment and elected to double down on it rather than show some humility and learn from those he impacted.
But he still feels the need to lecture us.
Ok.
@Ctein
And, yes, it’s much more productive to confront someone with, “That came across as a racist remark,” than “You are a racist,”
I do think that if people listen, they find that addressing what they said is potentially a less hostile and defense-inducing act than addressing the person. But too many people conflate the two anyway, by accident or by deliberate umbrage.