The SFPA: What the Association is, and is Not

[mtentchoff]

I try not to respond to reviews.  Heck, I try not to respond to posts, even when... no, especially when, something said in them infuriates me.  The internet is a breeding place for Hell Storms and flame wars, and I really can't handle such things

Comments

[mtentchoff]

Honestly? I think that's both a good and tough question. Of course magazines select based on content, but I think, _especially with poetry_ each slusher/reader sees a poem's content in a different way. What I think I object to is the idea of censorship based on the possibility that content might be seen offensive or controversial, especially when so much spec content really either is meant to be so, or can be taken as such whether it's meant to be or no. It's very, very easy to find something offensive in just about any poem, simply because poetry is so very open to interpretation. I'm reminded of the old brouhaha about Peter Paul and Mary's song, "Puff the Magic Dragon." There was a large group that wanted it banned because could be taken as promoting drug use in kids. The imagery in the song can very easily be seen that way. But the song writers claimed that was not the intent, and I at least think banning the song would have been a real loss. But then, I'll admit it's a favorite of mine, even now.

Mostly I think that as soon as we start deciding it's the job of the executive to start censoring poetry that may have offensive images, we open ourselves up to having to censor almost everything, including a lot of stuff that may well deserve to be read. Certainly, every editor has to know where to draw lines for him or herself, just as every editor will read things differently. And every reader has the right to read things as they wish, and to comment about what they think is poor, wrong, or offensive. But if it becomes the responsibility of the association as a whole, or of its executive, to censor works to the point where folk are calling for exec members to step down over the publication of specific poems, or pieces of art, I think the association, Star*Line, and the spec poetry community in general becomes a lesser place.

I'm probably not expressing myself clearly here. Sorry. Fighting some kind of a bug that's making me woozy and nauseated. Of course, it's a complex enough subject (at least I think it is) that I might not be able to express myself well anyway.

[mtentchoff]

To sum up, I think that for me part of it comes down simply to this:

It's perfectly fine, I think, to say, "I didn't like this, I read it as offensive, and I wish to hell I hadn't read it." It's not so ok to say, "I found it offensive, therefore it has no right to exist, or to be published."

[jjschwabach]

Censorship is a very slippery slope. I despise the fact that pornography exists. Once, when I was 18, I said as much to a family friend (someone my mother's age) and she said that while she agreed with me that things like Hustler are despicable and the tip of an even worse iceberg, once you start, there's no stopping. Remember, it was not to very long ago that there were book burning parties to destroy Harry Potter and "his ilk." Mostly, of course, participated in by people who had not *read* any of the offending works.

I suspect most people on your f-list, Marcie, whether or not they like the Harry Potter books, would agree that they have a right to exist. Yet some people were offended by the very suggestion of magic.

Some people are offended by the Bible. I know I'm offended by some *interpretations* of it.

Everyone has a right to like or dislike whatever they want.
In the case of specific publications, everyone has the right to write the editor. I've seen letters in the editorial columns of National Geographic and Time that began, "I really hated..." or "This was so wrong-headed..."

That's not the same as personally attack the editor or the writer.

I have to agree with Marcie: it comes down to, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."

That does *not* mean that I support racism or sexism, or suggest that anyone else do so. It does *not* mean ignoring these problems. It simply means live and let live. And just so there is no confusion, I'm female, (mostly) white, and have a severe and very visible disability. And I do notice racism and sexism and lots of other isms when they happen. There is a right and a wrong way to go about correcting those things, and verbal attacks is the wrong way. I taught anger management classes for ten years, and gentle, reasoned correction works much, much better.

I am no longer a member of SFPA, and had to be updated on this situation by friends who are. As to why I am no longer a member? I couldn't take the infighting.

[rachel_swirsky]

But I think what people are really saying is: "I found this offensive and if the organization that I pay to belong to thinks it is an appropriate representation of their mission, then I must either ask them to revise that opinion -- or I will leave."

I'm sure there is some issue that would tweak you on this. If the SFPA magazine started publishing love letters to the Stormfront, perhaps you might consider leaving the organization.

[mtentchoff]

Hrm. I think if the SFPA magazine started publishing poems that specifically targeted other members, I'd start questioning what was going on, and whether the poems were really spec poems, and meeting the SFPA's mandate. And I might, if I thought the SFPA's magazine was consistently not fulfilling its mandate, or if the mandate was something I didn't/couldn't agree with, comment or quit the SFPA.

But poems would have to be very, very blatantly attacking for me to even question their fitness for any publication, to the point where they'd pretty well have to be non-fictional. And even then I'd stop to think if there were other ways they could be interpreted that I might be missing. I just really, really hate the whole concept of limiting and censoring fictional works.

That's not to say that I don't think editors should and will keep from publishing works that can only be seen as offensive. I think they will. I don't think I'd ever choose to publish a piece that was obviously meant as an attack against anyone.

But I don't think it's my job, or the SFPA exec's job, to enforce censorship of fictional works. The slippery slope argument seems cliche, but... as soon as we decide we have the rights to decide what is too offensive or too possibly interpretable as offensive to be publishable, we must, I think, decside not to publish anything save for the utterly blandest of works, that can't possibly be seen as anything save cloying.

As I've said before, I'd rather err on the side of inclusion if I must err... and it's pretty tough not to err somehow or other.

Mostly, though, i want to point out again that I don't in any way want to speak out against anyone having opinions. I am just sick of seeing opinions presented in the form of demands, attacks, and first, or even retaliatory strikes. I'm sick of seeing folk who care about poetry, and the SFPA, people who put in long hours and huge amount of stress and sweat, being treated like monsters. Heck, this is spec poetry. We tend to treat monsters better than we do each other.

[jjschwabach]

I already left the organization, as stated above. I am commenting here based on what people who have not yet left have told me and have linked me to. The reason I left was due to an earlier bout of inappropriate expressing of dissatisfaction on the parts of some members. Since I left, that has, that I've been made aware of, happened three more times.

And yes, I think that is what people are saying. The problem, I think, is that some of them are not saying it the way you are saying it, but instead hurling epithets.

[mtentchoff]

*Nod.* This is very much what I'm seeing too.