Three Gray Fandoms

[ursulav]

So a lot of conversation is going on at the moment, post-Worldcon, about just how weird the demographics were, and that leads to “I’m tired of all this ageism” and while I am arguably not the most interesting or insightful on that matter, nor do I have a lot of experience with Worldcons, but hey, it’s the Internet, and when did that ever stop

Comments

[sentientcitizen]

I went to WorldCon a few years back, when it was in Montreal and a family friend was up for a Hugo. I brought a friend with me; I was a bona fide teenager till, while she'd just squeaked into her twenties a few months earlier. People seemed pleased in the abstract to see Young People at their con... but at every panel we went to, we found the same two stories.

1) It's okay if you're young, but if you haven't read every half-decent scrap of SF/F ever written, you are bad and should feel bad. "Wouldn't it be awesome if someone wrote something addressing such-and-such?" "Uh, white-male-author-so-and-so did that once in his short story such-and-such, published in year-before-you-were-born. You should read it. Next question." I think part of this was a sort of nerdy one-up-manship thing between panel members, but it made it really hard for us to even understand what was being talked about, much less feel welcome to participate in the conversation.

2) It's not okay if you're young. The fact that you're young is an active threat to the things we love. Get the hell out of our con. "Our TV show, Doctor Who/Stargate/Star Trek/something-else-that-was-old-and-has-a-new-version-now is being ruined by young sexy actors with their youth and sexiness. It used to be SERIOUS sci-fi and now it's just YOUNG SEXINESS. When we were younger, we watched TV uphill both ways in a raging snowstorm. Kids these days don't know how good they have it." My friend, who is asexual, raised her hand in a DW panel to note that the ace community has often claimed the Doctor as their own, and to ask about the increasing sexualisation of the Doctor as compared to previous more asexual interpretations. She was told by a DW writer that the showrunners felt it is was unrealistic to have a character that never expressed sexual attraction, an answer that was basically a slap in the face for her... and then the panellist went right back to complaining that Doctor Who is too sexual, darn these young people sexing up our show.

Maybe that year was particularly bad, for some reason. Lots of new reboots of old SF fandoms, maybe? But it wasn't just that WorldCon wasn't welcoming to younger individuals; it was, for us, actively hostile. Unsurprisingly, I have no real desire to return to WorldCon.

[torrain]

I went to that WorldCon too. And two things are dawning on me:

(1) I want to say it wasn't like that!

(2) I realize that I went out of my way to try and catch two things: the inclusive panels (there was a list of them put out by I believe coffeeandink) and the ones featuring specific people who also happened (I say that with self-suspicion) to be older white women. And there was still some, uhm, some really creepy stuff.

(3) I am remembering how old how many people I talked to were, relative to me. Most of them were not younger. I think possibly a couple of the people I saw from the art show and the dealer's room. Literally, two.

(4) I think part of it is that I geek relatively heavily on old SF, so I am capable of having a discussion that is more "You read 'Evening Primrose' too? I thought I was the only one!" than it is "Well I have read Jack Vance and Alfred Bester so neener."

(5) ...it was so like that, wasn't it. Dammit.

[misty_anne]

The Stars My Destination, yes! Did you know there's a comic version either out, or coming out? I may have to get it, since my current copy is about 15 years older than I am and is in appropriate shape for such a well loved book. Think Velveteen Rabbit in pulp.

[maladaptive]

"Wouldn't it be awesome if someone wrote something addressing such-and-such?" "Uh, white-male-author-so-and-so did that once in his short story such-and-such, published in year-before-you-were-born. You should read it. Next question."

Last time I got this, I actually knew the obscure thing in question, and quieted the room when I said: "I meant someone who did it well." They didn't like me, but damn was I tickled pink because that's one of my biggest pet peeves.* As a reader, if someone goes "Wouldn't it be cool if someone wrote XYZ?" I can bounce and go "yes! There's a thing, I can show you!" For some reason, a lot of SF people use it as a way to shut down conversation rather than draw the conversation out and I just don't get it. Like, you're here as a fan to discuss the things you love, wouldn't you want to... discuss? What exactly are you here for?

*In my defense, this was true. I did want something addressing such-and-such, and I wanted it written well! The example they cited was emphatically not it. Also, the first person to address something doesn't have to be the only one. We're all nerds here, let's discuss it to death. Like scientists, or people in the humanities, we're always talking in circles and trying to find a slightly different angle. I know we have lots of humanities people and scientists in the SF field!

[dornbeast]

"Uh, white-male-author-so-and-so did that once in his short story such-and-such, published in year-before-you-were-born. You should read it. Next question."

"Is there only room for one story in any given idea?" (Anybody who believes so should be referred to The Giftie Gie Us by Timothy Zahn, a story which he sent in to a magazine, only to discover that somebody had written a story with the same major plot point, and it was published that month in the magazine to which he had submitted.)

[ext_196686]

Asimov once submitted a story to Galaxy magazine about alien parasitism (called 'Hostess'), only to discover that Sturgeon was having HIS story about alien parasitism, right down to the strapline about being a 'host' to aliens that could have served either story) in Galaxy a few months before. Asimov had to change his story to be less identical.
The remarkable part, however, isn't the 'alien parasites' bit, but the names of the characters. Sturgeon's story was about a couple, Derek and Vera, and Asimov's story was also about a couple, Drake and Vera. [Vera had her name changed in the public version. Partly to make the stories more distinct, partly because a woman called Vera worked at the publishing company and it was thought that TWO stories about her being infected by alien parasites in one year might just creep her out a little too much]

There seems to be a long tradition in golden age SF of two or more authors simultaneously submitting very similar stories.

[theweaselking]

Same thing happens with movies. Deep Impact and Armageddon came out at the same time. Dante's Peak and Volcano also did. Every Dreamworks movie paired with something better by Pixar. Movies, particularly blockbusters, tend to come in pairs.

[ext_196686]

Well, at the time, Asimov and Sturgeon weren't dead either (though I believe they were at the time still both male and white). And there's a difference between what a publisher wants to publish to make money from a general audience and what a group of authors will set themselves as a challenge for fun and education between themselves. Writing challenges are hardly unique to "modern transformative fandom" - eg. the two versions of 'Ozymandias' by Shelley and Smith (which they managed to get published in the same magazine only one month apart).

I'm also not sure what the point is of stressing that traditional fandom is specifically the church of the dead WHITE MALE author. Is it really a major problem in traditional fandom at the moment that people don't think black women can write fantasy? Because in that case people must have been very confused when, for instance, Octavia Butler won two Nebulas and two Hugos, since she was neither white nor male. In fact, who is who holds the most records for Hugos for fiction? Why yes, it's Connie Willis, who the modern traditional "Church of the Dead White Male Author" is madly in love with and gives Hugos to every time she moves - she's won as many Hugos in the last fifteen years alone as Asimov won (for fiction) in his entire career! Of the five most Hugo-nominated authors, two are women.

I just happened to look at the 2011 Hugos (Willis' last win), and the people she beat: 4 out of the 5 Best Novel finalists were women. 2/5 finalists in Best Novella, only 1/5 in Best Novellette, but 3/4 in Best Short Story. At the last ten Worldcons, 4 out of the 10 Best Novels were written by women. Etc etc.

Of course, that doesn't address or excuse the possibility of language and behaviour unfriendly to women at worldcons - I wouldn't know, I've never been there. But in terms of the Authors that Worldcon attendees are members of a Church of, it really doesn't look like they're exclusively Male! [It's harder to tell how white they are, since I don't know many of the names, nor what percentage black authors would make up in a perfect world]

It's all very well talking about how only modern fandom is "transformative", but Old Fandom gave awards to people like Le Guin and Delany (can't get more Dead White Male Author than Delany, the black gay erotica writer from Harlem who at the time was in a non-exclusive and polyamorous marriage with a lesbian woman, and who won (or has won, so far) two Hugos with another seven nominations, plus four Nebulas for good luck, and is in the SF Hall of Fame - how much more Establishment and Non-Transformative can a man get?)

[ext_196686]

Just to clarify that point about behaviour at cons: that issue is different from the issue of who gets acclaimed. It may well be (again, never been, don't know) that Old Fandom is a church that doesn't want women in its congregation... but it sure doesn't seem to have a problem having women among its saints and idols.

[starcat_jewel]

It's really a Big Four -- Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, and Heinlein. And just try mentioning that you like some of Heinlein's stuff, but you don't care for his constant refrain that strong, independent women with established careers and lives of their own find Real Happiness by giving up all that to become baby factories! Suddenly you're an AngryManhatingFeministBitch.

(Incidentally, I haven't read most of the later Heinlein stuff myself. Sneer at me about it and I'll sneer right back, and maybe get snobby about more-modern authors that I've read. It works a treat -- they're so surprised that I don't cringe in shame that I can make my getaway while they're still sputtering.)

[rosefox]

I was going to say that from what I've heard Montreal's programming was particularly bad. But I don't remember the last time I heard about a Worldcon's programming being particularly good (though I have high hopes for LonCon).

[antongarou]

I was in the same WorldCon and had a lot of fun, but that might be the fact that I stuck with the panels that did not discuss literature, or barely discussed it(such as the panel about the difference between fairy tales and folk tales) and probably would have been at home in a relevant academic convention as open to the pubic panels. That and hanging mostly with the friends I came with.

[fjm]

I was Head of Programme for that one. I am still incensed that a decision was taken to put the gamers in a hotel, thus ensuring the invisivlibity and low participation of many teens.

I think at smaller conventions it's much easier to argue back with a panel. At a Worldcon panels and panelists acquire a gravitas they do not deserve. Something to muse on and try to change.