Diversity in ToCs

[girliejones]

Here's a really awesome post in Tempest Bradford's blog about the issue of diversity in science fictional anthologies.

To wit: when anthologies like this hit the Internets and we look at the TOC it’s very easy to notice that there are no women. It is therefore very easy to comment on and get angry about this fact.It is also easy for editors to

Comments

[cassiphone]

the idea that writing about people, being character focused or indeed concentrating on telling a story about life, is somehow not science fiction, is considered to be some different kind of story/genre in which no "plot" is needed or is not as "valid" in some way.Funnily enough, writing about people is only ever cited as a flaw of science fiction which is written by women. Men are given a free pass - indeed, when they write stories with interesting characters, people tend to COMPLIMENT them on that fact. Amazing, huh

[girliejones]

what it basically comes down to is that the definition of 'hard SF' is constantly being twisted and re-written to exclude female authors, even though the supposed characteristics of hard SF should not technically exclude a lot of female writing.

Did they give examples for that?

I do believe that (white) men are more likely than women to think that their response to fiction is the default, and thus their reaction is a 'fact' rather than a 'feeling'. Which is why 'I chose on merit' and 'these are the stories I like' are so often presented as if they should end the debate, rather than start one.Which is such a shame. I'm looking forward to when we can actually get past blame (I do so hate the instant finger pointing and yelling of the word "fail") and start dissecting and deconstructing and talking about the issues. I think it's really interesting to look at your own assumptions, question where they come from and test out how it feels to go beyond them

[capnoblivious]

I'm looking forward to when we can actually get past blame ... and start dissecting and deconstructing and talking about the issues.

Mm.

I'm a bit surprised at the credibility that's being afforded to the editor just to tear it down. This does not look like a particularly interesting anthology, and my (not very extensive experience) of the "Mammoth Books of..." is that they're ... hardly mindblowing.

And yet people are taking its assertion of being "the best, the ultimate...!" at face value, to take issue with it.

I'm not sure Ashley's someone I'd trust to make that judgement. I am sure I wouldn't take the Mammoth books as particularly definitive. The first flush of comments to that article throws up more interesting stuff, and that's almost just by reflex.

[girliejones]

But just because he has done a crap job at creating a mammoth piece of work that blows our minds, does that mean we shouldn't pick apart the job he did? I mean ... perhaps its crap in part because there are no women or people of colour on the list?

[capnoblivious]

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I guess, from my perspective, that the fact that it takes a moment's reflection to come up with a better list, says that maybe it's not a problem with the sf field as a whole so much as a problem with this editor and this series.

To illustrate: supposing he'd come up with "The Mammoth Book of New and Exciting SF!" that had nothing more recent than 1995. Or, more recent stuff but from a bunch of authors whose heyday was really the early 80s, in that style. You'd shrug your shoulders, laugh it off, and point and laugh every time you saw his name on an anthology.

Which is more or less what's happening.

I saw another TOC of an earlier MBof... that had the same problem. I think it's fair to say that this guy's not interested in women's writing. So I'd say if you *are* interested in women's writing, or you're interested in the kind of writing that gets excluded when people start excluding women's writing, then you'd give this guy a miss.

[girliejones]

I guess the problem is, and this is why the discussion, this is not the only case. This happens all the time, he's just another guy doing the same thing. If we give this guy, and all the other guys, a miss, we're not actually left with very much to actually read.

[capnoblivious]

I'm not saying give him a free ride. I'm saying, laugh at him. :)

(Edited - sorry, that was ambiguous.)

[girliejones]

I think anyone who still thinks it's ok to publish a book of all male writers and not expect to get pointed out and discussed, deserves to be laughed at.

[capnoblivious]

Honestly? I think you can give this guy and his series a miss. I will.

[girliejones]

Oh I'm not interested in it! I scanned the list and yawned, which is also kinda the point.

[cassiphone]

I don't think it's unreasonable to question that 'mindblowing' claim based on this TOC rather than hurling stones about that editor's previous work. The editor's taste and judgement is most definitely under question in the comments and responses, but the issue is more important than just who he is, or his track record.

You might not be keen on his work, but his books are a pretty visible component of our genre. They might never win Nebulas, but they are in a hell of a lot of bookshops, and represent many people's first impression of what science fiction is.

[capnoblivious]

I don't think it's unreasonable to question that 'mindblowing' claim based on this TOC rather than hurling stones about that editor's previous work.

Totally agree. This doesn't look like a mindblowing anthology.

But at the same time, his track record speaks to his credibility, yeah?

You might not be keen on his work, but his books are a pretty visible component of our genre.

Yeah, you're right. I don't really have an answer, beyond observing that there's a whole slew of things in our genre that are highly visible and not very interesting. :)

[cassiphone]

I do think it's important that the discussion is not a bunch of women/people putting down or attempting to discredit the male writers who were chosen for the anthology. That isn't what this is about.

The omissions and the lack of diversity is an important thing to notice and discuss about this book, and that's the conversation that the TOC has raised.

But tearing down the editor on the basis of the works he DID choose, or insulting the writers who were included, can only be destructive in this kind of conversation. It's the kind of thing that makes it easy for people to dismiss readers with legitimate complaints as a bunch of jealous/hysterical harpies/bitches/feminists rather than people who actually have a good point to make.

In other words - you as a bloke can bring "well he's a crap editor with crap taste" to the table, but for a woman to do so in this conversation would provide the other side with far too much ammunition.

[capnoblivious]

Oh - I think I see what you're getting at.

Yeah, there's no reason for anyone to be an arse about it, and I apologise if I was being an arse about it.

But at the same time, "It doesn't appear to be to my taste, for these reasons..." is what people should be saying, if it's not to their taste for those reasons.

[cassiphone]

You weren't being an arse. :D It just took me a while to articulate why your suggestion wasn't working for me in the context of the larger conversation.

*hugs*

[cassiphone]

Yes, the panel included discussion of many different definitions of 'hard SF' and many examples of men who were included as hard SF authors despite not really meeting the criteria, and lots of women whose work did match the criteria, but whom tended not to be thought of as included in hard SF