A day filled with surprises
Read more if you wish, but be prepared for strange happenings down at the Circle K. Allow me to suggest there is something herein you really don't want to miss. It's the last thing in the post.
I bought a new truck. Okay, it's not really "new" as in off the showroom floor with that new car smell (is there a new truck smell?) but it's new to me. And just for the record, it's purple. No, I didn't set out to find a purple truck, I set out to find a small truck and this one just happened to be purple.
Now, the surprise was actually this morning, or rather yesterday (Friday) morning. I went into the credit union to apply for the loan...not very big, but I wanted to preserve a little cash, and I'll pay it off quicker than the 1 year I have. Anyway, Stephanie (the woman who processed the application) was really super. Things were moving right along...I had all the stuff I needed...until right at the end.
She suddenly stops, says something like "Ut oh" and freezes. I'm thinking the worst (naturally). She looks at the computer screen three or four times, and then says she needs to go ask somebody about this. So, she heads out across the lobby, returns about a minute later, and looks at the screen again. Finally she says "I've never seen it do this before." Oh goody, I just broke the system.
Nope. She finally explains. "The computer just approved your loan. I don't have to have anyone look at it at all. It's...you're good." Well, that's a relief. I didn't really think it was going to be much of a problem because it's not much, I paid half down in cash, and there just isn't anything very strange. I'm even having the payments taken out directly from my account. What more could they ask?
She finally offers the real explanation. "Have you seen your credit report?" she asks. No, I really haven't. Didn't really have a reason to check. I pay my bills on time, don't have a balance on the credit cards, and just try to keep things smooth. Then she explains. "A 'perfect' score is 800." Yup, I knew that. I keep seeing the ads for reports on web ads and such. "Your score is 786...the highest I've ever seen."
Cool. The machine apparently really liked that. wOOt! Anyway, on Monday I'll pick up the new truck and life will move on. I'm donating the old car and old truck to a radio station that plays classical music. I can use the tax write-off, and I need to clear out the driveway.
Moving right along, towards the BIG ENDING.
Arrived at work today and checked my schedule. Yup, they did it again. I have Monday-Tuesday off, and then get another of the ever-popular 10 DAYS STRAIGHT! I have to cover a vacation in receiving again. YUK! Oh well. Whatever. AND, on Thursday the 24th, I get to work all day in receiving and then come back to teach a Do It Herself clinic in the evening. Hmmmm, they missed that one. Dunno quite how I'm going to do that.
Now, the BIG ENDING!
Some of you may have been following the BIG BRAWL over at Crossed Genres. In a nutshell, Bart placed an ad, requesting submissions for the LGBTQ edition coming up. A place called Flash Fiction Online refused the ad...because of the subject matter. It's gone downhill since then, with some very civil, but nonetheless homophobic conversation. Jake, the editor at the site is pretty much a narrow mind and believes what he wants to believe, all the while denying his thinking is narrow.
After Bart wrote to him, and he wrote back, the community sort of took up the charge, and there were offers of running the ad for free, etc. A couple days ago, Kay wrote her thoughts in an LJ posting, and it was again a civil but straightforward explanation and critique of Jake's position on the matter.
For reasons I can't really explain, I decided I would look around, and found that Jake had added some information on his website, obliquely referring to the situation without really talking on point. So, I challenged him a bit.
First, here's what I sent him...
I guess I'm confused.
You have explained that you will not carry ads that deal with alternative lifestyles or sexual orientations that are not classic heterosexual. Okay, I disagree with that stance, but it's your site and you can do as you please.
However, you are now explaining (without really explaining anything) on your submissions guidelines, that you'll consider anything as long as it's not a "message story." So, you would consider a story that includes such a character exactly how? Literature is full of characters with significant differences from the societal norms of their day. In fact, without them, almost every story would become boring and in many cases, pointless. Plot is based upon conflict, be it against external foes or purely internal. For example, Dumbledore is a flawed character, although we only truly discover how flawed in the final volume. JKR has said that she always thought of Dumbledore as gay, but it's never mentioned overtly in any of her books. So...that's okay? It's okay as long as he stays in the closet?
That line of thinking sounds suspiciously like the old Hays Code governing morality in the movies during the 30's. It was okay to show bad guys like gangsters or ciminals, but only as long as they were punished in the final reel. Your explanation sounds suspiciously like the first of the three guiding principles of the code..."No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it." Is that how you see your job as the editor of the site?
Also, in your final statement, you include the words "Meanwhile, let’s focus on the stories instead of the politics." Exactly how is this remotely "political?" Only those who oppose equality for all make this political. Are we to assume you also take that position? Your explanation, such as it was, certainly took a different line. Sort of.
Also, if you want to keep politics out of the conversation, why would you equate the discussion about LGBTQ with the second amendment, which is clearly political. The second amendment can not in any way be considered rooted in religion or any other moral position, so any personal position on the subject is purely political. Again, if you want to keep politics out of the discussion, why would you liken the original topic to one that is only political?
Sorry, but your logic in this whole situation is sadly confusing.
I wasn't really expecting a response, but I got one. Here it is, unedited in any way.
Craig,
Thanks for writing.
> However, you are now explaining (without really explaining anything) on your submissions guidelines,
> that you'll consider anything as long as it's not a "message story." So, you would consider a story
> that includes such a character exactly how?
As characters.
Instead of "queer", think "divorced". Do you think I'd reject a story because there's a divorced character in it? Probably not; although if the point of the story were to condone divorce, I probably wouldn't publish it. Then again, if the story provided an interesting view of divorce, maybe that would be okay. I'd have to read the story to know for sure.
Or think "creationist". I wouldn't reject a story with a creationist in it, but if the point were to justify creationism, I probably wouldn't publish it. Then again, if the story provided an interesting view on creationism, maybe that would be okay. I'd have to read the story to know for sure.
After all, as you say, "Literature is full of characters with significant differences from the societal norms". I am not shying away from characters who are different from me, which means that sometimes perspectives other than mine have a reasonable chance of seeing daylight.
And since I only publish about 2-3% of the stories I receive, most stories will be rejected before these questions even get asked.
The thing I most dislike about this affair from the magazine's perspective (i.e., aside from people's feelings being hurt, etc.) is that people are going to second-guess themselves and not send me stuff because they're afraid it won't meet my moral standards. That's the wrong way to think about this. When in doubt, query or submit.
> Exactly how is this remotely "political?" Only those who oppose equality for all make this political.
You say "equality for all": Doesn't that denote some set of rights that are equal for all? If so, then there's your answer. All discussions of rights are political. (Moral, too.) Also, many of the people who are attacking beliefs like mine phrase it in terms of a denial of equal rights.
You seem to think this shouldn't be political because it's about "equality for all". From my perspective, it's not. This isn't about denying equal rights to equal *people* (and yes, I do think that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal people), it's about special societal sanction of a special type of *relationship*, which is the monogamous lifelong male-female couple. It's not an equal rights issue at all.
Maybe it would help to remember that this isn't about GLBTQ issues specifically: I don't condone "equal rights" for divorce, in that I don't support "remarriage" for previously married people.
With respect to the second amendment, the comparison works because it's a rights issue. If you hang out with people who believe that it confers an individual right to bear arms -- well, with those who have actually thought about it, anyway -- you'll find that many (most? all?) say that it's rooted in the moral right and imperative to protect one's self, family, and society from tyrannical government, foreign enemies, and social unrest (including individual crime). Whether you agree with that or not, that's what they think. They might say that "only those who oppose the individual right to bear arms make this political."
> Sorry, but your logic in this whole situation is sadly confusing.
You might think this because you want black-and-white answers to shades-of-grey questions. That certainly seems to be the case with many people who are commenting publicly right now. Because I refuse to actively help someone promote LGBTQ relationships, I must automatically fit into some mindset that their prejudices have set up. Their disagreements with me are fundamental, so they see me as alien and opaque, and it's probably easier to dump me into the homophobe / hater / whatever bucket than to civilly discuss our differences.
I don't know how to fix that, except to explain (and probably overexplain) when people ask questions civilly.
Thanks for keeping it civil.
Regards,
Jake
So, now it seems, any character who isn't "properly married to their first (and only spouse) with the sole intent of procreation is questionable. Jeebus, I'm not sure what world Jake lives in, or wishes he lived in. In my world, there actually aren't very many people like that. Regardless of what anyone would prefer, the bulk of the people in the world aren't that "pure" and we all have warts.
He suggests that a divorced character, a re-married character, an unmarried character living with a partner, and just about everyone else is questionable. Unwed mothers, single parents, blended families, and other arrangements fill my world, and that doesn't begin to include all the other alternative lifestyles.
Where would literature be if it weren't for the struggles that our characters must face?
I'll let you form your own opinions in this matter, but I suspect you already know where mine are.
Well, that's the core dump for tonight. In a couple hours it's off to work...hie hoe, hie hoe.
C
I bought a new truck. Okay, it's not really "new" as in off the showroom floor with that new car smell (is there a new truck smell?) but it's new to me. And just for the record, it's purple. No, I didn't set out to find a purple truck, I set out to find a small truck and this one just happened to be purple.
Now, the surprise was actually this morning, or rather yesterday (Friday) morning. I went into the credit union to apply for the loan...not very big, but I wanted to preserve a little cash, and I'll pay it off quicker than the 1 year I have. Anyway, Stephanie (the woman who processed the application) was really super. Things were moving right along...I had all the stuff I needed...until right at the end.
She suddenly stops, says something like "Ut oh" and freezes. I'm thinking the worst (naturally). She looks at the computer screen three or four times, and then says she needs to go ask somebody about this. So, she heads out across the lobby, returns about a minute later, and looks at the screen again. Finally she says "I've never seen it do this before." Oh goody, I just broke the system.
Nope. She finally explains. "The computer just approved your loan. I don't have to have anyone look at it at all. It's...you're good." Well, that's a relief. I didn't really think it was going to be much of a problem because it's not much, I paid half down in cash, and there just isn't anything very strange. I'm even having the payments taken out directly from my account. What more could they ask?
She finally offers the real explanation. "Have you seen your credit report?" she asks. No, I really haven't. Didn't really have a reason to check. I pay my bills on time, don't have a balance on the credit cards, and just try to keep things smooth. Then she explains. "A 'perfect' score is 800." Yup, I knew that. I keep seeing the ads for reports on web ads and such. "Your score is 786...the highest I've ever seen."
Cool. The machine apparently really liked that. wOOt! Anyway, on Monday I'll pick up the new truck and life will move on. I'm donating the old car and old truck to a radio station that plays classical music. I can use the tax write-off, and I need to clear out the driveway.
Moving right along, towards the BIG ENDING.
Arrived at work today and checked my schedule. Yup, they did it again. I have Monday-Tuesday off, and then get another of the ever-popular 10 DAYS STRAIGHT! I have to cover a vacation in receiving again. YUK! Oh well. Whatever. AND, on Thursday the 24th, I get to work all day in receiving and then come back to teach a Do It Herself clinic in the evening. Hmmmm, they missed that one. Dunno quite how I'm going to do that.
Now, the BIG ENDING!
Some of you may have been following the BIG BRAWL over at Crossed Genres. In a nutshell, Bart placed an ad, requesting submissions for the LGBTQ edition coming up. A place called Flash Fiction Online refused the ad...because of the subject matter. It's gone downhill since then, with some very civil, but nonetheless homophobic conversation. Jake, the editor at the site is pretty much a narrow mind and believes what he wants to believe, all the while denying his thinking is narrow.
After Bart wrote to him, and he wrote back, the community sort of took up the charge, and there were offers of running the ad for free, etc. A couple days ago, Kay wrote her thoughts in an LJ posting, and it was again a civil but straightforward explanation and critique of Jake's position on the matter.
For reasons I can't really explain, I decided I would look around, and found that Jake had added some information on his website, obliquely referring to the situation without really talking on point. So, I challenged him a bit.
First, here's what I sent him...
I guess I'm confused.
You have explained that you will not carry ads that deal with alternative lifestyles or sexual orientations that are not classic heterosexual. Okay, I disagree with that stance, but it's your site and you can do as you please.
However, you are now explaining (without really explaining anything) on your submissions guidelines, that you'll consider anything as long as it's not a "message story." So, you would consider a story that includes such a character exactly how? Literature is full of characters with significant differences from the societal norms of their day. In fact, without them, almost every story would become boring and in many cases, pointless. Plot is based upon conflict, be it against external foes or purely internal. For example, Dumbledore is a flawed character, although we only truly discover how flawed in the final volume. JKR has said that she always thought of Dumbledore as gay, but it's never mentioned overtly in any of her books. So...that's okay? It's okay as long as he stays in the closet?
That line of thinking sounds suspiciously like the old Hays Code governing morality in the movies during the 30's. It was okay to show bad guys like gangsters or ciminals, but only as long as they were punished in the final reel. Your explanation sounds suspiciously like the first of the three guiding principles of the code..."No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it." Is that how you see your job as the editor of the site?
Also, in your final statement, you include the words "Meanwhile, let’s focus on the stories instead of the politics." Exactly how is this remotely "political?" Only those who oppose equality for all make this political. Are we to assume you also take that position? Your explanation, such as it was, certainly took a different line. Sort of.
Also, if you want to keep politics out of the conversation, why would you equate the discussion about LGBTQ with the second amendment, which is clearly political. The second amendment can not in any way be considered rooted in religion or any other moral position, so any personal position on the subject is purely political. Again, if you want to keep politics out of the discussion, why would you liken the original topic to one that is only political?
Sorry, but your logic in this whole situation is sadly confusing.
I wasn't really expecting a response, but I got one. Here it is, unedited in any way.
Craig,
Thanks for writing.
> However, you are now explaining (without really explaining anything) on your submissions guidelines,
> that you'll consider anything as long as it's not a "message story." So, you would consider a story
> that includes such a character exactly how?
As characters.
Instead of "queer", think "divorced". Do you think I'd reject a story because there's a divorced character in it? Probably not; although if the point of the story were to condone divorce, I probably wouldn't publish it. Then again, if the story provided an interesting view of divorce, maybe that would be okay. I'd have to read the story to know for sure.
Or think "creationist". I wouldn't reject a story with a creationist in it, but if the point were to justify creationism, I probably wouldn't publish it. Then again, if the story provided an interesting view on creationism, maybe that would be okay. I'd have to read the story to know for sure.
After all, as you say, "Literature is full of characters with significant differences from the societal norms". I am not shying away from characters who are different from me, which means that sometimes perspectives other than mine have a reasonable chance of seeing daylight.
And since I only publish about 2-3% of the stories I receive, most stories will be rejected before these questions even get asked.
The thing I most dislike about this affair from the magazine's perspective (i.e., aside from people's feelings being hurt, etc.) is that people are going to second-guess themselves and not send me stuff because they're afraid it won't meet my moral standards. That's the wrong way to think about this. When in doubt, query or submit.
> Exactly how is this remotely "political?" Only those who oppose equality for all make this political.
You say "equality for all": Doesn't that denote some set of rights that are equal for all? If so, then there's your answer. All discussions of rights are political. (Moral, too.) Also, many of the people who are attacking beliefs like mine phrase it in terms of a denial of equal rights.
You seem to think this shouldn't be political because it's about "equality for all". From my perspective, it's not. This isn't about denying equal rights to equal *people* (and yes, I do think that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal people), it's about special societal sanction of a special type of *relationship*, which is the monogamous lifelong male-female couple. It's not an equal rights issue at all.
Maybe it would help to remember that this isn't about GLBTQ issues specifically: I don't condone "equal rights" for divorce, in that I don't support "remarriage" for previously married people.
With respect to the second amendment, the comparison works because it's a rights issue. If you hang out with people who believe that it confers an individual right to bear arms -- well, with those who have actually thought about it, anyway -- you'll find that many (most? all?) say that it's rooted in the moral right and imperative to protect one's self, family, and society from tyrannical government, foreign enemies, and social unrest (including individual crime). Whether you agree with that or not, that's what they think. They might say that "only those who oppose the individual right to bear arms make this political."
> Sorry, but your logic in this whole situation is sadly confusing.
You might think this because you want black-and-white answers to shades-of-grey questions. That certainly seems to be the case with many people who are commenting publicly right now. Because I refuse to actively help someone promote LGBTQ relationships, I must automatically fit into some mindset that their prejudices have set up. Their disagreements with me are fundamental, so they see me as alien and opaque, and it's probably easier to dump me into the homophobe / hater / whatever bucket than to civilly discuss our differences.
I don't know how to fix that, except to explain (and probably overexplain) when people ask questions civilly.
Thanks for keeping it civil.
Regards,
Jake
So, now it seems, any character who isn't "properly married to their first (and only spouse) with the sole intent of procreation is questionable. Jeebus, I'm not sure what world Jake lives in, or wishes he lived in. In my world, there actually aren't very many people like that. Regardless of what anyone would prefer, the bulk of the people in the world aren't that "pure" and we all have warts.
He suggests that a divorced character, a re-married character, an unmarried character living with a partner, and just about everyone else is questionable. Unwed mothers, single parents, blended families, and other arrangements fill my world, and that doesn't begin to include all the other alternative lifestyles.
Where would literature be if it weren't for the struggles that our characters must face?
I'll let you form your own opinions in this matter, but I suspect you already know where mine are.
Well, that's the core dump for tonight. In a couple hours it's off to work...hie hoe, hie hoe.
C