I'd ask a few other attendees, like this one before buying into sweeping generalizations. The panel about rape as descibed makes it doubtful the consensus was to never mention rape in fiction. In her keynote speech Jo Walton praised pedophile rapist Humbert Humbert as an example "of unlikeable characters that we like anyway". That people might be unwilling to engage in a tangent about real life issues during panel discussions about writing fiction, but I doubt thousands of women spent several days together and didn't debate real life events. I can see someone only noticing what fits a preconception, kind of like responding to news of harassment by saying, "well, I know that guy and he didn't harass me."
Well, since the link offered is invalid, I guess I can't check out that person's opinion. I would love to have Elise tell us what happened, in her view, that constituted harassment. Or does feeling harraessed equal being harraessed? (apparently in Florida Elise could have just shot Jim, and been within the bounds of law.) Knowing someone gives some level of insight into their behavior. This makes it harder to believe or understand events as described. Or rather, as NOT described, because they were so, so, very traumatic. Why has there been no attempt to figure out if there was an actual problem? Or just someone feeling uncomfortable and being unwilling to correct the situation herself, instead of expecting The Authorities to do it for her? Because hey- if one situation is accepted without question because it was reported as harassment, then Angeli's comments also need to to be believed without comment, because she was made so upset. Q
That wasn't the consensus, largely because with me in the room that wasn't GOING to be the consensus ... but it was a serious argument made by a sizable portion of the room.
Some female authors like Seanan MacGuire have come out against ever using rape in fiction because it is inherently exploitative and falls into reams of anti-feminist tropes. (I think Ms MacGuire meant this only for her own writing but from that conversation clearly not everyone took it that way.)
There is some interest in having some kind of response to this by developing programming around it, the way a lot of racial clusterfuckery led to the Carl Brandon Society. That could work. I'm just not sure I want to do that work.
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I would love to have Elise tell us what happened, in her view, that constituted harassment. Or does feeling harraessed equal being harraessed? (apparently in Florida Elise could have just shot Jim, and been within the bounds of law.)
Knowing someone gives some level of insight into their behavior. This makes it harder to believe or understand events as described. Or rather, as NOT described, because they were so, so, very traumatic.
Why has there been no attempt to figure out if there was an actual problem? Or just someone feeling uncomfortable and being unwilling to correct the situation herself, instead of expecting The Authorities to do it for her?
Because hey- if one situation is accepted without question because it was reported as harassment, then Angeli's comments also need to to be believed without comment, because she was made so upset. Q
Reply
That wasn't the consensus, largely because with me in the room that wasn't GOING to be the consensus ... but it was a serious argument made by a sizable portion of the room.
Some female authors like Seanan MacGuire have come out against ever using rape in fiction because it is inherently exploitative and falls into reams of anti-feminist tropes. (I think Ms MacGuire meant this only for her own writing but from that conversation clearly not everyone took it that way.)
Reply
There is some interest in having some kind of response to this by developing programming around it, the way a lot of racial clusterfuckery led to the Carl Brandon Society. That could work. I'm just not sure I want to do that work.
Reply
Leave a comment