Replies to SFWA's YA/MG group

[amysisson]

I told SFWA's YA/MG special interest group that I would not derail their discussion further by continuing to talk there about why they're restricting the group. They've made their decision and they don't want to re-hash it, and I understand that

Comments

[romulantbonz]

*sigh*

Tribalism. The bane of humanity.

[mckitterick]

My feelings exactly. In fact, this attitude suggests that the authors who started this sub-clique are atypical of YA/MG authors, because most I know are very open and supportive of one another. I suspect this particular group is full of insecure types who feel exclusive sub-tribes make them more powerful. Sad, because this could be really useful to the rest of SFWA, especially for those currently writing such work.

[amysisson]

I know a lot of wonderful YA/MG authors too. One of the worst parts of this was going on that list and seeing the names of people who are in the "keep those ignorant newbies the heck out!" because I have a lot less respect for them than I used to. If they were so concerned about avoiding YA-101 questions, the "welcome to the group" message could contain a reminder that "this group is intended for xyz discussion; please visit the FAQ before posting basic questions about the field". The moderator could remind anyone who doesn't abide by that. And I still maintain it would be less than they think.

[mckitterick]

I totally agree. That's how EVERY OTHER professional organization works.

Sheesh. At first I was irritated because I'd find it useful (writing a YA novel, first of a trilogy, right now), but since have come to realize these are probably not the kind of folks with whom I'd want to associate.

[amysisson]

Yep......