SFWA Destroys Significance of Own Nebula Awards

[jordan179]

So, the Nebula Awards, which are given by the SFWA (Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America) were all won by women, in a blatant display of deliberate sexism which was celebrated as such.  In other words, an award that is supposed to be for the best writing of the year was instead awarded only to the best writing by women for the year

Comments

[jsl32]

eh, group based anthologies have their place. it's better to go that route than elaborate quota systems in anthologies not based on ethnic or gender group membership (a common issue i ran into with "year's best" literary anthologies, back when i was fool enough to read those).

[jordan179]

It's better still to avoid quota systems entirely and pick stories based on their actual merits, rather than the group identities of their authors.

[foxfire74]

I'm all for group-based anthologies, though I've never learned anything from them that I wouldn't from any other collection of stories (no "hey, members of group X often perceive the world this way, interesting!") Free country, no skin off my nose, etc.

But there's a difference between editors going "hey, we're looking for stories written by red-headed lefties from Massachusetts, send us what you've got" and people colluding to slant an awards program so that only red-headed lefties from Massachusetts get awards.

[jsl32]

yes, the latter is exactly the problem. and the people who like the latter best are very invested in not admitting that's what they are doing.

[haikujaguar]

SFWA's been very helpful to me recently. I know it's in to diss it, but it quietly continues to do helpful things for its members while people are making much of its mistakes.

[banner]

Eh, who cares?

As I've mentioned before, SFWA won't let me join because I'm a self published ebook author. Doesn't matter that I've sold thousands of copies, all that matters is that I don't have anything to do with traditional publishers, which is who SFWA appears to support first.

It does very much appear as well that SFWA really doesn't do much for its members, compared to most trade organizations. Again, that probably has something to do with SFWA supporting publishers before authors. So why would I want to join an organization that doesn't do anything for me? Especially one that appears to punish conservative authors rather harshly? Hell look what they did to that Vox guy! And they have (or had) a plagiarist as President?

Yeah, not so sure I would want to join that crowd. Too much PC and other garden club BS.

[haikujaguar]

We've put together membership requirements that allow indie publishers in, specifically. I know, because I am on the self-publishing committee.

SFWA has still done some super helpful things for me, even though I am primarily indie-published. And as a freakish conservative who also goes to Church, I have not yet been tossed from the organization despite making my affiliations clear and mentioning more than once that I feel discriminated against.

[banner]

This must be a very new development, because the last time I looked there was nothing there, and one of my friends (who is a best selling author for one of the big 6) asked about membership for indies because she thought I should join, and they totally ignored her as well.

But again, their recent actions have been pretty flaky and I've heard more horror stories from authors than success stores. I do not see anything to be gained by giving them any of my money.

[haikujaguar]

It is recent. I like to think I've been instrumental in pushing some of that forward, since I've been behind that cart and shoving it since the moment I renewed my membership a year and a half ago. But Jerry Pournelle's been calling for similar guidelines for a while, and he's not the only one

[expanding_x_man]

I also dislike group identity based anthologies, though I confess I am in one now. And have been in at least, one. I get asked, and I contribute. I have a horrible habit of NEVER sending writing out, so if no one asks, I don't get published. I am not kidding. Even the memoir was the result of someone putting the idea in my head, since I only wrote poetry, and then -- handing me an agent's name to write. I am, needless to say, getting rid of this very bad habit. But, I hate identity politics and I feel slightly weird being in identity based anthologies. Some have good stuff, others not so much. In some cases, there may be a place -- for seldom heard voices from certain groups, all in one place, but generally - I would rather be seen as a member of a school of writing, or a particular intellectual/writing movement than a racial/ethnic/orientation/trans or other group. I also worry I am perpetuating this. Sigh

[headnoises]

I think there's a place for 'em-- if it's fun, not to show how All Right Thinking X write Y.

If done right, it can be "there is so much good stuff out there, we can have a book that's written by red headed stepdaughters and it's still full of great stuff!

The problem is... there isn't, or at least it doesn't show up. Every "characteristic of the author" collection I've read that wasn't, say, "War Vets In Their Own Words" or something (Oooh, there's an idea-- veterinarians write werewolf fiction) has been MOSTLY filler.

You're right that philosophy/background groups have better results than bio groups.

[redxcrosse]

How do you know the books they picked weren't the best writing of the year?

[jordan179]

If we assume that male and female science-fiction writers have an equal chance individually to generate one of the "best" stories in each category for the year, the prevalance of female winners this year, coupled with the triumphalist rhetoric of the SFWA voters for having picked females this year, argues strongly that male SF writers were being deliberately excluded, and hence that only around half the stories picked were among the "best."

[redxcrosse]

Yeah, they're being loud about it. It doesn't follow that some guy lost out. So...which of the other nominees were better than the ones that won?

[inverarity]

I don't think that follows. It may be that some voters had a bias towards female authors, but you see a deliberate conspiracy to exclude all men which I think is unlikely. The after-the-fact cheering and fist-pumping by a small segment doesn't mean that the SFWA as a whole was voting for things just because the author was a woman. Your statistical argument would require we see the actual vote counts to see how widely they diverged from what we could probabilistically predict.