I drew this horse to represent all four-legged beasts of burden, how can you not see that?
So here's the thing about the argument that prospective members of the SFPA should not be making assumptions about the nature of the organization based on the name, and that nobody should assume what's published in Star*Line is representative of an organizational aesthetic: both the name and the official publication are meant to represent the organization. People are supposed to make assumptions about what the organization does, who its members are, and what it supports based on its public facets. They are supposed to draw conclusions about whether or not they would be interested in the organization based on these public facets. That's part of what those facets are for.
Now, if several different people make the wrong assumptions and draw the wrong conclusions based on the name and/or official publication of an organization, this does not mean those people are stupid, lazy, or wilfully ignorant. If several members of the organization indicate the name and/or official publication don't represent them, this does not mean they are looking for something to complain about, don't have better things to do with their time, or aren't involved in the organization as it currently stands. What it means is that there is something wrong with the name and publication. Both are meant to be representational, but the representations are inaccurate. An explanation might help, but an explanation should be for clarification and expansion, not correction, especially not when an organization has open membership and one of its stated goals is growing awareness of its members' shared interest. Thus, any representation that requires ongoing correctional explanations (e.g. "No, no, it's not just for science fiction poetry, we also support fantasy poetry, horror poetry, science poetry, etc."), and which discludes those it's meant to include, is a bad representation. A representation that invites further clarification (e.g. "Yes, speculative stands for science fiction, horror, fantasy, science, etc."), and that includes all of those it's meant to represent, is a better representation.
To put it another way, let's say you own a camel, and you board that camel at a stable that also houses llamas, horses, donkeys, and elephants (I'm a fantasist, go with it). To offset the costs of housing so many animals, the stable runs a business where people can rent the animals to ride. What's more, if someone rents your camel, a part of the profit is credited toward your horse's board. The owners of the stable call the business Horsin' Around Animal Rides, and hire an artist to create some ads for the business. Because of the name, the artist decides to focus on drawing variations of horses, and the ads go out to local venues.
Business is okay. Not stellar, and some of the client base mention that it might do better if the name indicated people could rent things other than horses, but the stable makes just enough profit to stay open. As a camel owner, you personally don't do quite as well as the stable as a whole, and you find you have to do more of your own word of mouth advertising than your buddy who owns a horse. You consider talking to the stable owners about changing the advertising and the business name, and you know some of your fellow non-horse owners have already talked to the stable owners. You've also heard that clients are speaking up about the discrepancy, mentioning missed opportunities for more customers, including some who would have rented your camel.
Then you find out there are a lot of llama, camel, and elephant owners in the area who are renting out their own animals, and who never considered boarding at the same stable as you either because they weren't aware it boarded anything other than horses, or they feel a stable that only advertises horses isn't a good place for a non-horse owner. Some of the other non-horse owners who were boarding at the stable decide to house and rent their own animals, and some of them do better business than they did at the stable. Some of the horse owners, concerned that the stable may not remain viable much longer, join the non-horse owners and urge the stable owners to consider a change of business name and advertising. They suggest something like Rent-a-Ride Animal Rentals, with ads that include horses, llamas, camels, donkeys, and elephants.
Other horse owners are resistant to the change, worried it will mean fewer horse ride rentals, even though horses are remaining part of the ad campaign. A few horse owners even suggest the stable should close its doors to non-horses, thus making the name and advertising more accurate, even if it cuts down on the number of animals offered for rent. The stable owners dismiss this argument, but now they ask that every person boarding an animal with them give them input. Should they change the ads and name to better reflect their actual business practices? Or should they keep the ads and the name, under which they have a somewhat stable clientele, and rely on unofficial channels to convey that they rent more than horses? Which practice is more likely to increase business for both you, a camel owner, and the horse owners at the stable?
Relatedly, there's been an increase in SFPA membership in the past few weeks. I can't help but wonder how many of those new members intend to vote for a name change, and would support guest editors at Star*Line.
Now, if several different people make the wrong assumptions and draw the wrong conclusions based on the name and/or official publication of an organization, this does not mean those people are stupid, lazy, or wilfully ignorant. If several members of the organization indicate the name and/or official publication don't represent them, this does not mean they are looking for something to complain about, don't have better things to do with their time, or aren't involved in the organization as it currently stands. What it means is that there is something wrong with the name and publication. Both are meant to be representational, but the representations are inaccurate. An explanation might help, but an explanation should be for clarification and expansion, not correction, especially not when an organization has open membership and one of its stated goals is growing awareness of its members' shared interest. Thus, any representation that requires ongoing correctional explanations (e.g. "No, no, it's not just for science fiction poetry, we also support fantasy poetry, horror poetry, science poetry, etc."), and which discludes those it's meant to include, is a bad representation. A representation that invites further clarification (e.g. "Yes, speculative stands for science fiction, horror, fantasy, science, etc."), and that includes all of those it's meant to represent, is a better representation.
To put it another way, let's say you own a camel, and you board that camel at a stable that also houses llamas, horses, donkeys, and elephants (I'm a fantasist, go with it). To offset the costs of housing so many animals, the stable runs a business where people can rent the animals to ride. What's more, if someone rents your camel, a part of the profit is credited toward your horse's board. The owners of the stable call the business Horsin' Around Animal Rides, and hire an artist to create some ads for the business. Because of the name, the artist decides to focus on drawing variations of horses, and the ads go out to local venues.
Business is okay. Not stellar, and some of the client base mention that it might do better if the name indicated people could rent things other than horses, but the stable makes just enough profit to stay open. As a camel owner, you personally don't do quite as well as the stable as a whole, and you find you have to do more of your own word of mouth advertising than your buddy who owns a horse. You consider talking to the stable owners about changing the advertising and the business name, and you know some of your fellow non-horse owners have already talked to the stable owners. You've also heard that clients are speaking up about the discrepancy, mentioning missed opportunities for more customers, including some who would have rented your camel.
Then you find out there are a lot of llama, camel, and elephant owners in the area who are renting out their own animals, and who never considered boarding at the same stable as you either because they weren't aware it boarded anything other than horses, or they feel a stable that only advertises horses isn't a good place for a non-horse owner. Some of the other non-horse owners who were boarding at the stable decide to house and rent their own animals, and some of them do better business than they did at the stable. Some of the horse owners, concerned that the stable may not remain viable much longer, join the non-horse owners and urge the stable owners to consider a change of business name and advertising. They suggest something like Rent-a-Ride Animal Rentals, with ads that include horses, llamas, camels, donkeys, and elephants.
Other horse owners are resistant to the change, worried it will mean fewer horse ride rentals, even though horses are remaining part of the ad campaign. A few horse owners even suggest the stable should close its doors to non-horses, thus making the name and advertising more accurate, even if it cuts down on the number of animals offered for rent. The stable owners dismiss this argument, but now they ask that every person boarding an animal with them give them input. Should they change the ads and name to better reflect their actual business practices? Or should they keep the ads and the name, under which they have a somewhat stable clientele, and rely on unofficial channels to convey that they rent more than horses? Which practice is more likely to increase business for both you, a camel owner, and the horse owners at the stable?
Relatedly, there's been an increase in SFPA membership in the past few weeks. I can't help but wonder how many of those new members intend to vote for a name change, and would support guest editors at Star*Line.