Sexism and Gordon Van Gelder

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post the ongoing gender discussion Dave Truesdale 176  1  06-12-07  12:16 pm Gender bias Steven Francis Murph 60  1  05-08-07  11:46 am   Start New Thread

Author Message   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:03 pm:    In the thread on Dave Truesdale's latest column, people whose opinions I value are calling me sexist. So I thought I'd start a separate thread for the subject. Basically, I think that my work as editor speaks for itself and if anyone wants to judge me as being sexist, they should do so from the last decade's worth of issues of F&SF. Fault me all you like for having published issues without any stories by women. I know I've done it more than once. If you want to discuss the "slush bomb" experiment here, Charlie, let me know. I've tried to avoid discussing the experiment in public up to now. I'm not going to name any writers or discuss their work unless they clearly want me to do so, so I doubt we can have much of a discussion, but I'll do what I can otherwise to answer your questions. As I said to Lisa in the other thread, I don't think a general discussion on this topic does much good---you wind up making generalizations and those generalizations just don't serve much purpose, in my opinion. But I'm here, I'm open to discussion (as time permits), and I think it's an important topic.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:17 pm:    GVG, I haven't called you a sexist. But Dave took hard shots at Emshwiller and then there's the latest column. But one has to understand that if all that one had read was those two columns then one could very well decide that Dave is a sexist. And the publisher too.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 05:54 am:    Thanks for your post. I understand where you're coming from and I agree that it bears watching to see if Dave's columns follow a pattern of always criticizing stories by women and always praising stories by men. I've never noticed any such pattern in his columns before, but I'll certainly keep an eye out from now on.   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 06:20 am:    Are there any signs of folk supporting Dave? Is it helping the circulation/reputation of F&SF? I would predict that if Dave continues writing these sorts of columns that it's just going to get worse for you and F&SF. (More complaints, more lost business, loss of contributions, loss of reputation) Dave seems to thrive on this sort of stuff so I don't know that it's hurting him at all. He may be the only "winner" in this unfortunate situation...   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:22 am:    I would predict that if Dave continues writing these sorts of columns that it's just going to get worse for you and F&SF. (More complaints, more lost business, loss of contributions, loss of reputation) Loss of reputation? Loss of business? That's pretty extreme, isn't it? For the record, Gordon was not the first F & SF editor to buy my work. Kris Rusch was. I can always look back and say that my own writing was able to appear in the same publication that my favorite writers, over time, and favorite stories also appeared. This is one thing that nobody can take away from me, and that does mean something to me. Gordon can have a direct, strong defense from me. His taste, his reading, his manner of response, and his behavior as an editor and publisher is impeccable. F & SF does publish a "certain type" of story. Not monolithically identifiable as a "certain type" except that I would say, the standard of writing in general is very high for the publication. People simply are not reading, or do not understand what they read if they think there is anything "sexist" about F & SF, or any of its editorial staff. The reason fewer female SF authors appear, in general, is that fewer women, in general, are that interested in writing SF and there's nothing Gordon or any other editor can do about that from an editorial position except buy good work that they do see. There are more women writing fantasy and horror, but only so many slots in this one publication each month. To fill all slots with female, or with any other "category" of writer - would be absurd. I consider Gordon to be . . . well, I am very proud of what he's done with the magazine, and I am glad to know him. And I'll say it right now, if any writer wants to appear in F & SF, they can just write better than me. How's that? Not so high a bar. A very, very easy one.   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 11:06 am:    "Loss of reputation? Loss of business? That's pretty extreme, isn't it?" Dave is the extreme one. On the other thread one or more have already indicated that they intend to not renew their subscription. On a couple of blogs that Charles linked there are others indicating the same. I have not yet reached that point. In fact, I've tried to get Dave to turn it around. I've indicated to GVG that this is not helpful to F&SF.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 05:53 am:    My biggest concern, to be honest, is that if this idea that I'm sexist persists, then women will stop submitting stories to F&SF. I've gotten reports in the past of comments like "Van Gelder doesn't buy stories from women" floating around writing workshops, and I've always ignored them---the work that I've published speaks for itself. But it's starting to sound like the idea is gaining strength instead of disappearing and I'd hate to miss out on some good stories just because the author had some mistaken notion about me or my reading tastes.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:34 am:    Gordon, I think that your silence on those reports has been taken as a confirmation of the opinion. And I know for certain a number of successful professional women authors who no longer submit to F&SF because of that impression. (As a side note, both Strange Horizons and Fantasy Magazine print statistics on the male/female ratio of submissions versus acceptances, and both publish a higher percentage of women writers than they receive in slush: although I have no proof, I think it's because they're getting submissions that are skipping right past magazines like F&SF.) The saddest thing to me is that this situation is completely avoidable. All it takes is public statments like, "We're happy to get stories from women authors, especially new authors. About 20% of the submissions we receive are from women, which is about the same number of stories we publish by women authors. As the percentage of submissions from women rises, I expect that the composition of stories in the magazine will change too. So please, please send us your stories. We can't buy stories we don't get to read." Also, I think a statement after the slush bomb like, "We have no way of knowing which stories were submitted for the slush bomb and which weren't, but we noticed the increase in submissions this month and were impressed by a lot of the work even if we couldn't buy it. We hope to see some of these stories in print in other magazines and encourage all the authors who participated to keep sending us their new work first." I know you or JJA have said similar things to me in private. I think if either of you said those things in public, there wouldn't even be a debate on this issue.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:50 am:    Charlie, I'll bet Strange Horizons and Fantasy Magazine get a fraction of the submissions F&SF gets. Somehow I can't see JJ Adams spending his time counting who sent what to the magazine. Why the heck should Gordon make nice to potential submittors to his magazine just because they're female? Gordon has encouraged female writers to submit stories in public--he's said it on panels. Anyone with a brain in his head should know that his story can't be bought by an editor if it's never submitted. I never got as many submissions from females as males at OMNI or SCIFICTION. Is that because I'm perceived as sexist? I don't think so.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:58 am:    Ellen, maybe you're right. Gordon said he was worried about perceptions and the effect of them, and I commented on what I know about both and offered an opinion. I trust him to know his business better than I do and to use or ignore that information and opinion as he sees fit.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:05 am:    GVG, you have the power to print your position in F&SF and put it on the website. And I note that there is no welcoming statement in the writer's guidelines.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:08 am:    PM, This is what guidelines often look like...Welcoming statement of WHAT? Saying Females we want your stories? Please, gimme a break! SCIFI.COM is looking for literate, strongly plotted science fiction and fantasy stories between 2,000 and 17,500 words, on a variety of subjects and themes. We want to intrigue our readers with mind-broadening, thought-provoking stories. Characterization is crucial. Payment is 20 cents a word up to $3500.00. Originals only; no reprints. It is impossible to judge a story's quality without seeing the complete manuscript. If you have a story you think fits our requirements, submit it for consideration. But please do not send more than one story at a time; wait for a response on one before submitting another. Note: we do not publish sword-and-sorcery or space opera. And we do not accept unsolicited poetry or simultaneous submissions. We will consider a self-contained story that is part of a novel, or may later be developed into one. All stories must be typed, double-spaced, and on only one side of each page. Each page should be numbered and include title and author's last name. The author's full name and address should appear in the upper left-hand corner of page one; an approximate word count should appear in the upper right-hand corner. Please paper clip your manuscript. Do not staple and do not use weird fonts. All italics must be shown by underlining. If you choose to submit photocopies, they must be clear and readable. We do not accept any form of electronic submission. Please include an appropriately sized, self-addressed, stamped envelope (SASE). Contributors residing outside the United States should include two (2) international reply coupons and a letter-sized envelope for reply. Foreign manuscripts will no longer be returned under any circumstances. We usually respond within five to eight weeks after receiving a submission. Depending on numerous variables, however, it can sometimes take longer. Please give us ample time before inquiring about a submission's status.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:10 am:    It is NOT the job of an editor to coddle writers. It is the editor's job to buy the best fiction they can get. This is not to say editors don't have to hold a writer's hand to get her/his story into the best shape it can be. Editors often nag those writers who they would like to write for their mags but this would be a private nag (I do it all the time for whatever I'm working on). I'm pretty sure Gordon does too.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:20 am:    Ellen, here's what I had in mind. Submissions are welcomed by everyone and given due consideration. Or something along those lines. It wouldn't hurt for other publications to say something along these lines as well.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:25 am:    PM Sorry, but I think that self-evident. Guidelines are inviting everyone to submit--that's what they're for.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:31 am:    I don't think this is coddling writers. Ellen, it's important to recognize that not everyone knows GVG or is overly familiar with F&SF. One wonders what sort of impression the first time reader has when visiting the F&SF website and reads Dave's column.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:32 am:    Ellen, self-evident to you (and others) but not necessarily everyone. Surely everyone knows that jobs are available to everyone but no one considers it strange to welcome everyone to apply for a job.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:38 am:    PM, I'm afraid I disagree with you on this. Guidelines should be business-like and provide information. That's all. The guidelines I posted are the type of guidelines posted and here are some others: http://strangehorizons.com/guidelines/fiction.shtml http://literary.erictmarin.com/guidelines.htm http://www.ideomancer.com/main/ideoMain.htm   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:46 am:    Ellen, I understand that you're acclimated. This is how it's been done in the past. But it's a request for work. And businesses that want to encourage everyone to apply do not hesitate to state it as such.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:10 am:    No, This is how it's done NOW! Those guidelines are all current.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:15 am:    I realize that Ellen. But when the question is asked how non-white males can be encouraged to submit work, one of my responses is why not encourage it via the submission guidelines.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:29 am:    Been lurking off and on. Frankly, the reaction to Dave's column and the general meme going around that male editors actively discriminate against female aspirants strikes me as more of the standard issue PC Nazism that infects so much dialogue in our culture. I've told more than one female aspirant, "Write it and send it. If you don't, then don't bitch if the sub stats are screwed up." Never ends. Shit. Send the stuff to Jed at Strange Horizons. He seems to militantly go out of his way to skew the sub stats so that he meets with the standards of political correctness. Or to put it in my own politically incorrect, insensitive way, "Quit yer bitchin' and get back to yer' scribblin'."   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:39 am:    thank you Stephen. Ok. Here's what I believe (I'm using "she" here exclusively only because we've been discussing women--the same goes for male writers) A writer who thinks writing is her calling and is considering it her profession (even if she does something else to earn enough money to live on) writes and submits to markets--smartly, the higher paying ones first and then downwards. You don't stop just because you've been turned down. Pat Murphy submitted stories to me for OMNI for several years and kept submitting, even though I turned down all those stories. Until one day I bought one because I thought it was terrific. Carol Emshiller sent me stories at OMNI that I continued to turn down because they weren't speculative enough (this is in the 80s during her non-spec period). Finally, she started writing stories that I loved and felt I wanted to publish in OMNI. Kelly Link (and Steve Pasechnik) sent me her early stories at OMNI but they weren't appropriate. In fact, I never bought a story from her while at OMNI but only started buying from her when publishing Event Horizon. What do the above all have in common? They are female and they all persisted, even though I kept turning their fiction down for years. That is how it works. Those who give up easily aren't going to be professional writers.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:40 am:    SFM: "Never ends. Shit. Send the stuff to Jed at Strange Horizons. He seems to militantly go out of his way to skew the sub stats so that he meets with the standards of political correctness. Or to put it in my own politically incorrect, insensitive way, "Quit yer bitchin' and get back to yer' scribblin'." " Now if I'D said that...hoo boy. ;-) Surprised to see you here, Murph. What's it been, a year or so since I last saw your posts over at the Asimov's forum? I've just been back online for a few months, but it's nice to see you here.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:46 am:    Steven, there's way too much name calling. It's not right coming from the right or from the left.   Christopher Barzak Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:00 am:    I agree with Ellen on this. I don't think Gordon has to make public statements about his receptiveness to authors who are women. I think it's evident that he publishes work by women--Carol Emshwiller, Kelly Link, Susanna Clarke, M. Rickert. Why, if not for Gordon, who knows if M. Rickert would have been discovered when she was? In the same vein, Gordon has published stories by queer authors or stories with queer characters or issues as well. One of the problems with this debate is that people are trying to figure out why there are fewer women publishing genre work (which I think is kind of odd in and of itself, that people are focusing on women, when frankly there are fewer queer writers and writers of varying ethnicity and race publishing in the genre) and really the reason for this is because, take a look at the stats, less women write genre work, less people of varying ethnicity and racial backgrounds write genre work, and fewer queer people write in the genre as well. It's not as if they are unwelcome. It's more that they have to "bring it" as Charles Saunders once wrote in his essay Why Blacks Should Read (and Write) Science Fiction, published in Dark Matter: "[Blacks] have to bring some to get some in outer space and otherspace, as we have done here on Earth. Just as our ancestors sang their songs in a strange land when they were kidnapped and sold from Africa, we must, now and in the future, continue to sing our songs under strange stars." This is true of any minority group really. I don't anyone should be published by virtue of their minority status alone. I think you have to bring it. On the topic of how guidelines are written, there is absolutely no need to be anything other than business professional. I read a bunch of different magazines both online and in print and frankly, there are magazines that go out of their way to have a balanced reflection of a variety of different kinds of people, but often the quality of the stories published are less than exciting when stories are chosen to fill a quota rather than because they wowed the editor. It's about the stories, not the writer, or at least it should be, I think.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:49 pm:    Sheila Finch, Carolyn Ives Gilman, Mary Soon Lee, Esther Friesner, Tanith Lee, Phyllis Eisenstein, Eleanor Arnason, Claudia O'Keefe, Michaela Roessner, Ursula K. Le Guin, Kate Wilhelm special issue. I could list a lot more but I'm sick of looking stuff up for assuming others.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 01:22 pm:    Thanks, Ellen and Christopher---and Murphy, too. As Chris says, I think my work speaks for itself. If someone wants to come forward and call me sexist for publishing that Robert Reed story in which the bad boy is sent back to his mother's womb, I'd be interested in hearing the argument. I might learn something from it, like the time, Charlie, when you pointed out how many stories I'd bought that featured father/son relationships. Until you mentioned that, I hadn't noticed. But why didn't I respond to any reports? Aside from echoing Chris again, there's another good reason: no one ever directly made any such claims to me. The reports I've gotten are all third- and fourth-hand, like one Clarion instructor telling me what a student said another instructor said about me. Charlie, you bring up the "slush bomb." I have to say, that experiment probably looked like fun from your perspective, but from where I sit, it was the dumbest thing since George Constanza tried to trap the candy bar thief by putting out all Twix bars. I did my best to consider all submissions during that period (and now) and select the ones I think F&SF readers will like the most. Any other statement on my part strikes me as being unnecessary.   Mary Rickert Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 02:50 pm:    In my years working with Gordon Van Gelder I have always been treated respectfully, my sexuality has never been an issue. However, every time someone says that Gordon Van Gelder is sexist and doesn't publish women I feel reduced to a cipher. Yes, I know my name is sometimes mentioned as in "Gordon Van Gelder has published some women" followed by a list of women's names, but the underlying message is that the women writers he has published have only token value. This is quite insulting. Gordon Van Gelder has never made me feel like a token, but those who support this conjecture of sexism based on floating reason have. As to the slush bomb, it wasn't, and couldn't be, any kind of real experiment. There are too many unknown variables. It's terrible science to assume any known truth from so much unknown information.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 02:54 pm:    GVG, I was under the mistaken impression that someone had directly made such a claim to you. I think it's unfortunate that folk would spread rumors and be unwilling to come forward and discuss their accusations in an open manner.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:36 pm:    No, no direct claims. Though now that I think of it, I remember the Clarion West 2005 class had some issues with something I said in an interview, as a recall. (I forget exactly what it was, but I remember getting a call asking for some clarification.) I've basically ignored such talk, but one of Charlie Finlay's posts and the tone of some of the others made me realize that, as Charlie said, by keeping silent I've given people the wrong impression. Which was why I started this thread.   Nathan Ballingrud Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:42 pm:    I'll add my voice to Ellen's, Christopher's, and Steven's. I think it's nonsense to expect an editor to extend a hand to writers for submissions, unless of course it's on a personal level. You come in from the slush and you duke it out with everyone else. If you've got the stuff, you'll make it. That's the game. It's always been the game. Looking at F&SF's TOC over any reasonable stretch of time would make it obvious that women writers are welcome there. F&SF's supposed hostility to ficton from women strikes me as one of those ideas that gains traction through repetition and anecdote, without any basis in truth.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:51 pm:    Gordon, I believe I told you that the Clarion south class before mine were told things by another editor concerning your "agenda" that I said were dead wrong. If people hear "rumors" that they know to be false it's everyone's responsibility to debunk them.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 04:58 pm:    Dave, I said, "Good bye" to the Asimov's Forum, umm, gosh, it has been more than a month ago. Frankly, I don't have a lot of time to waste engaging in the Same Old Shit on these boards. If I'm here, I'm not getting anything done. And I did say it. Funny thing is, I can say stuff like that to Aussies/Kiwis/and Brits (well, Richard Morgan being the singular exception) and they simply take it for that it is and on we roll, disagreements or no. But My Fellow Americans react to anything outside of the Orthodoxy (and American Science Fiction is virulently infected with this problem in my opinion) with, "Off with his nuts!" I'm kinda tired of it. Fuck. There are plenty of things I personally do not like about the current state of science fiction. I think it runs too far left and it tends toward censorship of things that might upset people (remember what happened to Jim Grimsley not too long ago?). I think we spend too much time worry about the ranks of the Permanently Offended and the Perpetually Victimized both as fans and as writers (I can say that since I did sell something recently). I don't like the fact that if you set a story in the American Midwest, your antagonist has to be a Hillbilly Redneck Woman Hating Shotgun toting, NRA card carrying Hick who also just happens to be a very psychologically disturbed "combat veteran." Now, I could fill the internet with bitchings about this all day. I could scream at the top of my lungs that the Editors are a bunch of PC Nazis and that it ain't right (I'm only saying that about Jed, the rest are exempt or I don't know them well enough). OR I could, well, write my fiction to the best of my ability and try to sell it INSPITE of the obstacles that I believe are out there. That is what a Writer does. You write it, you submit it, if it didn't get through because you were too overt with your "message" (which is another thing that irritates the fuck out of me about SF these days, there always has to be a KS Robinson style "message") then maybe you ought to try being sneaky and subtle with it instead. I personally know a number of women who are as good if not better than I am as a writer. When I talk to them I hammer at them as much as I can, "Write your stuff, submit it and get on with it." For whatever reason, they've always got excuses. Perfectly legimitate ones I suppose. I've got my own excuses (someone at Charles Finlay's Livejournal says I need therapy so I guess that is my excuse) but here is one final quote to consider with regard to excuses. I got it from the Army and I think Writers should tattoo this on their foreheads. Sergeant asks the soldier: What is the effective range of an excuse, Private? Soldier: I do not know, Sergeant. Sergeant: Private, the effective range of an excuse is ZERO! Disclaimer: Neither Ellen nor Gordon has bought my stuff. Though Ellen did give me a very nice rejection letter for the first version of The Limb Knitter back in 2004. A greatly improved version 2.0 is out to market right now. I do believe I'll go back to lurk mode now. Not exactly like I'm all that terribly welcome in this patch of the net. Respects, S. F. Murphy http://sfmurphy.journalspace.com   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 05:17 pm:    PM wrote But when the question is asked how non-white males can be encouraged to submit work, one of my responses is why not encourage it via the submission guidelines. Why does a minority need an additional notation in the submission guidelines to prompt them to submit something? If they are a Writer and they want it badly enough, they will submit regardless of what the guidelines say. This is what I find so maddening about the nearly Encyclopedic List of Regulations at Strange Horizons for their Fiction Guidelines and who they want submitting. Everytime I see some new bit of PC Fascism, I feel any creative urge to write a story curl up into a ball and die. It is oppressive in its own way and I think it stiffles a lot of writers in its own way. Frankly, everytime I see a guideline that states, "We encourage minorities, women and alternate sexual orientations to submit," I translated that into, "White Guys Need Not Apply."   Dave Truesdale Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 05:34 pm:    Murph, Bravo and ditto to both your posts. Couldn't have said it better myself.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 05:46 pm:    Steven, I agree with you that the discussions over at Asimov's can become unbelievably abusive. It's sad. How is this "PC Fascism"? Nathan: "That's the game. It's always been the game." No. There are and have been any number of women pretending to be men (altering their names) in order to gain a foothold.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 06:01 pm:    A handful...at any given time. And men using initials which don't give away their gender. What's your point? Nathan's statement is correct--everyone takes equal lumps when submitting fiction to an editor. >>>>No. There are and have been any number of women pretending to be men (altering their names) in order to gain a foothold.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 06:12 pm:    "Nathan's statement is correct--everyone takes equal lumps when submitting fiction to an editor." Ellen you know that this is not true that all editors everywhere act without any prejudices. I think there's a blind spot here. You and GVG know what you're like. The person submitting doesn't know either of you --- doesn't know your values. It's not about special treatment. It's about making it explicit that we're all on the same team and willing to play together.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 06:44 pm:    PM, Excuse me, but I still think you're wrong. I know that it IS true that editors want the best stories for their anthologies and magazines regardless of who writes them. And that is the ONLY thing that counts. The story--and how good it is. Editors have different tastes--that is a bias in that I may hate a certain KIND of story and will never buy that kind of story no matter who it's by. I don't think you have really read what Mary and Nathan have posted. Hundreds of writers (male and female) submit fiction all the time to F&SF and to other venues. NONE of them need a special invitation to do so.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:03 pm:    Ellen, I don't know that I'd say Jed picks the best. But we are likely going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Jed and his Fiction Selection Committee's choices give me a bloody migraine. If they were the only market left in science fiction, I'd go write pornoscripts for the Russian mob. PM, I stopped going to Asimov's not due to the abuse (says the man who has been known to call some people "fucktards" and "kidfuckers" among a long list of many nasty things). Some people need a verbal thump in the side of the head. I was only too happy to provide. No, I stopped going because I found there simply wasn't anything left to say. Gardner's termination from his position as Forum Moderator pretty much was the final nail in the coffin. As for PC Fascism, well, that is pretty easy to describe. If you lodge a criticism of things such as "diveristy" or "multiculturalism" or God forbid you might have a problem with affirmative action, the Advocates and Proponents of those three things will immediately react by labeling you a racist, sexist, woman hating, homophobic, discriminatory son of a bitch. Worse, they just might call you a Neo-con, or a Republican. Some places in American you can get slapped with those things and nothing too much will happen to you. On the other hand, in fields such as academics, or perhaps writing (like science fiction) such tags can be career enders. It ends debate immediately by simply accusing the critic of one of the above forms of discrimination. That is why I call it PC Fascism. And that is exactly what it is.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:21 pm:    "I know that it IS true that editors want the best stories for their anthologies and magazines regardless of who writes them. And that is the ONLY thing that counts. The story--and how good it is." I'm disagreeing with the blanket assertion that "all editors" are only interested in the story and how good it is. There are commercial considerations. Some writers can sell magazines/anthologies better than others. There are availability considerations. Editors can only choose from what's available to them. There are interpersonal considerations. Some writers aren't interested in working with some editors and vice versa. Editors can choose who they wish for any number of reasons. GVG chose Dave. Sometimes it's just to help out by providing work. Having said that editors don't usually want their magazines/anthologies to suck. I'm not completely disagreeing with you and I'm happy to hear that you work hard for the best end result possible. GVG, just saw the June cover. That's a welcoming sight! Thanks!   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:40 pm:    "A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004] Steven, I agree that folk just calling other folk names can be destructive. And when white folk start railing against affirmative action what a lot of black folk are hearing is that these white folk are upset that the black folk got jobs. Cause quite frankly depending on the circumstances/region a lot of black folk aren't feeling like they're getting special treatment. So you should not be surprised if black folk get angry with you if you start bashing affirmative action.   Nathan Ballingrud Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:44 pm:    No one's made that blanket assertion, PM. You've enclosed "all editors" in quotes but the only one who's used that phrase is you. Having said that, I think it can be safely stated that all editors of a professional caliber want the best story for their anthology or their magazine; and yes, of course that takes into account writers whose names will move product. But it's not limited to that, nor to any of the other vague considerations you listed. I just don't believe that professionals are going to be scouring the cover letter looking for indications of race or sexual orientation, or knotting their brows over whether or not there are too many women's names in their TOC. It actually is possible for grown up people to be objective. The point I was trying to make, and I think others too, is that new writers have always had to go through the long, grueling process of learning the craft and taking some serious blows to the ego in that process. We all know it's going to be a grind (or we should, anyway). And when that new writer is dealing with one of the professional magazines, it should be understood that there's a standing invitation to send your best work. Because if it's good enough it WILL find a home. Not to put too fine a point on it, but writers who are concerned that they're being singled out for other considerations probably just need to spend a little more time on their craft.   Nathan Ballingrud Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:46 pm:    The above post is in response to PM's 7:21 post, of course, not the 7:40 one.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 07:57 pm:    Nathan, I don't entirely disagree with your point but it's obvious that certain writers make it and so we see their names over and over again for as long as they're willing to submit work. And that stable of writers excludes everybody else. So if King or Rowling were to decide that they wanted to be in F&SF I don't think GVG would be inclined to turn them down. So if you're say black and haven't already made the stable then the actual available openings in F&SF are not that many. Which is also true of all unknown writers. The writing will find a home if it's acceptable to the editor(s) AND the submission is sent to the right publication.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:02 pm:    It's rare that editors ONLY publish the same writers over and over again. Even if we wanted to we couldn't, because most short story writers move on to novel writing and many don't return to short fiction. It's the relative rarity that regularly writes both in the novel and short lengths. So...editors are always looking for new writers. And guess what? We don't know if a writer we don't know who is submitting is black or white or other race.   Nathan Ballingrud Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:10 pm:    "So if you're say black and haven't already made the stable then the actual available openings in F&SF are not that many. Which is also true of all unknown writers." There you go. ALL unknown writers. Can it be that we've come to an agreement?   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:22 pm:    ...but it's obvious that certain writers make it and so we see their names over and over again for as long as they're willing to submit work. That's not entirely true. At Ideomancer I've seen recognizable names get rejected for a variety of reasons, often because the piece doesn't fit the editorial vision. At least one was rejected simply because it wasn't speculative enough. True, we tend to give them a pass out of the slush pile and have higher expectations than with unknown slush, but there is a type (or whatever you wish to call it) of story that we seek. And while we don't look for ethnicity, gender or otherwise in the names (though some names cause an immediate groan because of experience) there is a certain bias in each editor's assumptions, biases, interests, and history. Mr. Van Gelder has Mr. Adams as his only filter, and so there is a sharper focus in F&SF, I think, then in magazines with several editors. I would be hard-pressed to identify characteristics of exactly the type of story Mr. Van Gelder buys (other than, generally, quite good) I have a pretty good idea of what I will and won't see. He tends to buy more traditional narrative (built with the identifiable parts you were taught in various literature classes) as opposed to experimental, which is part of his editorial taste. When I seek something else, I reach for Strange Horizons or Lady Churchill's or Rabid Transit or Polyphony. For harder science, generally Asimov's.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:25 pm:    To reiterate what Sean says above, just because someone has published in my magazine or webzine or anthology once, doesn't mean I buy every story she sends me. I have a "stable" of hundreds of writers because the longer I've been in the biz, the more writers I've published. And somehow newer writers still make it into the mix.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:49 pm:    I should clarify my statement to say that certain writers will be published over and over again though not in the same publication. It's a point that we'll acknowledge just as Ellen will acknowledge that her recent anthos are not substantially comprised of new writers (fewer than three sales). But on the other hand we'd also acknowledge our strong opposition to writers being limited to publishing just a few stories in all publications. That would allow for many writers to reach print. And Nathan, we'll just have to agree to agree   Christopher Barzak Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:54 pm:    PM: "It's a point that we'll acknowledge just as Ellen will acknowledge that her recent anthos are not substantially comprised of new writers (fewer than three sales)." Is that an actual definition of newer writer? Because, and I'm not joking here, I guess I consider myself a newer writer still, and I've published lots of stories. I guess new writer to me means someone who still has something to prove, which I feel I do. If I'm serious about this, that is. Which I am.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:00 pm:    Christopher perhaps unpublished writer would be more acceptable than new writer. Hopefully you'll always have something to prove which is not intended as a slight. I was a bit surprised earlier though when I made the suggestion of adding a welcoming statement to the writer guidelines. Wasn't trying to stomp any toes, but it didn't go over too well and one person suggested that it was going to lead to his death.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:00 pm:    PM, I consider the following writers from recent or forthcoming anthos "new" writers: Carolyn Dunn Steve Berman Christopher Barzak Jedediah Berry Stewart Moore --first sale ( I think) Terra Gearheart-- first sale (I think) Nathan Ballingrud Stephen Graham Jones Nik Houser (first sale for sure--although I picked it for YBFH, which makes it his second sale-it was published in a lit mag called Gargoyle) Bruce Glassco And I'll bet that in all the anthologies I've edited in the past five years (including YBFH ) you've never heard of half of the writers' names before.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:05 pm:    I should have specified that I was thinking of your original anthos and not the YBFH. How much are we betting?   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:09 pm:    I said this earlier in this discussion (I think). I hardly ever have published writers for the first time because I rarely think their first story is strong enough for my markets. While I think I bought only a couple of first stories at OMNI in the seventeen years I was Fiction Editor (Ted Chiang's was one), I did buy second or third stories from writers such as Dan Simmons and William Gibson. Several writers made first sales to me at SCIFICTION over the almost six years I was there.   Christopher Barzak Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:12 pm:    PM, I think the idea of a welcoming statement in guidelines is "nice" but not really necessary either. Really, I do think it's nice, but I also think it's basically a pool and you've got to jump in with all the other slush and hope you make a big enough splash to get noticed. And there's a sort of goodness to that sort of activity in the process as well, I think, that it encourages a striving to do better maybe. I think it's kind of humiliating to be a writer in some ways. Well, just think of the language we use for this whole publishing process--submission and rejection and acceptance--it's obviously kind of an arena of activity that isn't overly oriented towards niceness as it is a kind of bottom line, which is any industry really. So I guess I don't bring any particular expectations to the process of submission for writing than I do for how a lot of job hiring processes go. They're polite, but in the end, they're doing a job. It's work. A labor of love in this case, sure, but work. And thanks. I hope I always have something to prove too. ;-)   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:13 pm:    A gentlewoman's bet--but I don't have time to get out all my TOC so unless you want to go through all my anthos that you have and make a list it ain't gonna happen. (I'll trust you to be honest about having heard of the contributors or not). You have to count the horror anthos as well as the sf/f ones :-)   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:20 pm:    "I said this earlier in this discussion (I think)." Yes you did. Sorry if I created confusion by not making my statements clear/accurate. But all of this was aimed toward discussing how difficult it is for any unpublished writer to break in. And returning to the point, if anyone is going to accuse GVG of sexism or whatever they ought to provide evidence rather than just making the charge.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:38 pm:    Well I do hope that folk will pick up the upcoming Years Best Fantasy & Horror, The Coyote Road (it's YA), Inferno and her anthos that are being reprinted (eventually). Regardless of whether you like me or not I don't think that my listing all your TOCs for the last few years is going to win me any favors here. I did plug your books I don't read as much horror as you do and so if the author is horror only then the name is likely a mystery to me. But yeah the TOCs for sf/f well over half.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:52 pm:    Referring to your 9:20 post: So we round about to final agreement. ;-)   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:03 pm:    But had you heard of them before you read my anthos? :-) I should have gone back ten years rather than just five ;-)   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:25 pm:    I would say that Locus is a major source of information, not that I'm able to retain it all. (Take a moment and if you don't already and subscribe to Locus.) And the internet. Ben Peek comes immediately to mind. He has a new novel Black Sheep due any day. Elizabeth Hand, likewise has a new novel, Generation Loss due any day now. She also has a wonderful podcast at her website: www.elizabethhand.com Certainly though there are cases where my first or one of my first reading experiences of an author will be in your antho. "I should have gone back ten years rather than just five ;-)" And then I could recommend Timequake which I consider to be one of Vonnegut's better novel. Those familiar with the novel will understand the ten year connection.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 12:33 pm:    Gordon, I can live with that description just as long as I don't remind you of Jerry stealing the marbled rye. I have a different perspective on the slush bomb from this end of the elephant, but I'll email you about it.   Sheila Finch Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 06:03 pm:    Personally, a magazine that stated that it explicitly welcomed female writers would put me off submitting. I'd expect the editors to be looking for something more "feminist" than I write. I hope I write stories about strong characters, both males and females, because that's what I'm aiming to do, not illuminate an agenda. I've submitted, and continue to submit, my material to a lot of different places -- all your eggs in one basket, y'know -- and I still get rejected (Hello, Ellen!) So what? I don't buy into fantasies of being rejected because the editor is loathe to publish women. Gordon has published a number of my stories, and he's also rejected some. That's the writing life, if you ask me.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 11:26 pm:    :-)   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 06:10 am:    I'm really glad you made that last post, Sheila, because I think that as a reader, I respond better to strong characters. (Leigh Brackett, for instance, is a favorite writer of mine.) And I suspect that if someone sat down and read through a bunch of stories I've published in F&SF, they could identify other things I like or don't like in fiction. I have my reading quirks, just like every other editor who ever published anything, and some of those quirks surely have gender issues mixed in with them. But if anyone has ever attempted this sort of analysis, I've never heard about it. Instead, I hear the aforementioned rumors and I think you're right that they're fantasies concocted by writers with bruised egos. As far as I can tell, I've never bought a story based on the author's gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, height, weight, hair color, or number of degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 08:39 am:    As far as I can tell, I've never bought a story based on the author's gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, height, weight, hair color, or number of degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. Yeah, this is what I think too. Instead, I hear the aforementioned rumors and I think you're right that they're fantasies concocted by writers with bruised egos. This is where I think you're dead wrong. Look at what you told Susan Linville when she was researching the article on women writers for the SFWA Bulletin: "Fortunately, Gordon Van Gelder at F&SF was kind enough to do an actual submission count. Of 375 submissions, he found that 265 were from men (70.5%), 94 from women (25%) and 17 unknown (4.5%). He wrote: 'I have to admit these results are not what I expected—I thought the male/female ratio was closer to 50/50.'" If you thought that submissions were 50/50, why is it unreasonable that people outside the magazine think the same? I think that people assume about 50% subs are from women, and then only see 20 - 30% stories published are by women, and they assume -- incorrectly -- that there's bias. Because there are constantly new readers and new writers entering the scene, the answer isn't to be dismissive of this perception -- which you shared at one time -- or to blame it on pique. It takes patient, constant re-education. Having a stockpile of useful phrases, like some examples I gave upthread, to bring out every time the issue comes up would go much farther toward correcting the perception than ignoring the problem, or responding to it with denial. All it takes is, "Yeah, I know that's the perception, but here are the facts, and sure, we'd love to see more stories from women." Why this is so difficult to grasp continues to baffle me. These readers and writers only have the same perception that you had at one time, Gordon, and they draw conclusions from it, which are reasonable if incorrect. When their concerns are answered with silence -- or compounded by a column like Dave's -- it's taken as confirmation. They're not dumb, insecure, or vindictive people drawing this conclusion: they're smart, capable readers and writers, using the little information that's available to make the best decisions they can for spending their entertainment money and developing their careers. This mis-perception would be an easy one to solve without changing guidelines or anything like that. All it would take is a clear message with more accurate information, delivered consistently, whenever this issue comes up, for as long as it comes up.   PM Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 09:59 am:    And Sheila and others make the point: "Personally, a magazine that stated that it explicitly welcomed female writers would put me off submitting." Now reverse it and understand how not welcoming folk will cause some not to submit. It works both ways. And that also (and Dave) could/does(?) lead to a perception that some women aren't welcome.   Sheila Finch Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 01:15 pm:    PM, I don't think publishing is about making us feel welcome. It's about buying the best fiction an editor can find, and an editor who doesn't understand that will eventually fail. I don't expect a special invitation; I expect to compete in the marketplace. (I don't always succeed, but hey, that's the breaks of the game.)   PM Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 02:41 pm:    Sheila, How can one hope to publish the "best fiction" if one is intentionally excluding? As you've already stated you will not submit to publications which you consider "feminist". That's not competition that's exclusion within the context of that publication or publications. Now whether you're excluding yourself voluntarily or whether you've been excluded by the publication it's still exclusion.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 03:35 pm:    Thank God Shelia said that. That is what I've been screaming for four years now.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 03:58 pm:    Express yourself! Help a homeless mother and child, and send a lovely card for Mother's Day . . . We do not do "fundraisers" but this is a recent picture of a mother and her baby helped by my organization, and a drawing that a little girl who was homeless did. http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2007/05/special_mothers.html   Sheila Finch Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 05:24 pm:    "How can one hope to publish the "best fiction" if one is intentionally excluding?" PM, if you truly believe what you wrote then you have just libelled one of the most open-minded editors in the field. You have absolutely no evidence to back that up other than a vague idea that Gordon should put out a welcome mat solely for women. No editor ought to be expected to publish *anything* unless he/she believes it's good enough to sell magazines and please the subscribers.   Elizabeth L Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 05:35 pm:    If you thought that submissions were 50/50, why is it unreasonable that people outside the magazine think the same? I think that people assume about 50% subs are from women, and then only see 20 - 30% stories published are by women, and they assume -- incorrectly -- that there's bias. PM, good point -- if Gordon mistakenly thought that the ratio was 50:50, so might most people. If they then see that only 20-30% of published stories are from women, they might mistakenly conclude that there is a bias against women writers at F&SF. I'm personally comforted as an aspiring writer to know that F&SF publishes a higher percentage of women writers than submit, and feel assured that when I submit, the story quality and suitability -- not my gender -- is what counts. I don't know, nor can I assume, that every other editor of every other magazine is the same without evidence. I know a number of women writers don't submit to the big 3 because they see F&SF and Asimov's and Analog as biased towards women writers. If Gordon and others are concerned to get the very best stories possible regardless of the writer's "identity", then they should say so and not just assume that it goes without saying. It doesn't. The appearance of bias can be as limiting as its actuality. As someone who came of age during the still un-enlightened late 70s when my guidance counsellor told me not to study science in university because it was "hard for girls", I know of what I speak. Luckily, I was too enamored of science not to follow his advice. However, the mere fact that there are fewer female names in the SF (as in science fiction, not fantasy) magazines, awards and bookshelves acts to discourage women writers who might otherwise have something valuable to contribute. Letting them know that they have an equal shot -- not by assurances that the editor is gender-blind (who, after all, would admit to being gender biased?) but by cold hard facts -- would be strong encouragement. Not that I expect to see any such assurance any time soon, it being so un-anti-PC to do so today . . .   Elizabeth L Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 05:40 pm:    Oops. Sorry, Charlie. That was meant for you, not PM.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 07:18 pm:    How the hell can Asimov's be biased against women with Shelia Williams in charge of it? You know, pixels wasted here is stories not written elsewhere.   PM Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 07:39 pm:    Steven, guess you've never met any women who believe that women are intellectually inferior to men. Sheila, don't know where this libel charge is coming from. I don't have any specific reasons to believe that GVG is a sexist. I haven't been asserting that. I have said that those who believe that he is should reveal something concrete other than rejection soreness. GVG has stated that he's gender neutral. I can take him at his word until someone can prove otherwise. GVG has stated that he's against changing the guidelines as it is not necessary to do so in order to encourage everybody to submit. Sheila, in your own statement (and others have said as much) you consider such a guideline change as something that would prevent you from submitting stories. Well I'm not trying to stop you from submitting work I'm just trying to encourage everyone to feel welcome. Everyone of course has to pass the quality test so for folk to continue to suggest that I'm advocating special treatment where different groups don't have to write at the same level of quality is absurd.   PM Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 07:44 pm:    And as JJA is the one reading the slush is he not the gatekeeper?   Sheila Finch Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 09:41 pm:    "...intentionally excluding..." PM.   GSH Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 10:52 pm:    This paste from Wikipedia strikes me as interesting: "Romance is the most popular genre in modern literature. In 2004, romantic fiction generated $1.2 billion in sales, with 2,285 romance novels published. Almost 55% of all paperback books sold in 2004 were romance novels, and this genre made up 39% of all fiction sold that year. Over 64 million people claimed to have read at least one romance novel in 2004, according to a Romance Writers of America study, a 26% increase over their 2001 study. Twenty-two percent of romance readers identified themselves as male, and the romance readers were split evenly between people who were married and those who were single. People of all ages read romance novels, with one percent of readers younger than 13, and forty-two percent of them have at least a bachelor's degree." Dang! The biggest market going, and almost all of the writers are female. Matter of fact, if a guy wants to get in he's got to take up a pen name to conceal his gender. I found a few examples of this somebody posted elsewhere: "Harold Lowry writes as Leigh Greenwood; Tom E. Huff wrote as Jennifer Wilde and Edwinna Marlowe; Vince Brach writes as Fran Vincent; author Judith Michaels is husband and wife Judith Barnard and Michael Fain." I haven't got stats to trot out, but I think no one would argue that the percentage of male romance writers isn't tiny when compared with the twenty-two percent of romance readers both male and man enough to admit that they read the durn things. My point? Uh... Male writers shouldn't complain about being excluded from the single largest fiction market unless they're regularly submitting to it? Editors of romance novels are sexist and biased against male writers? Their submission guidelines don't specifically encourage male writers to enter this exceptionally vigorous and lucrative marketplace? Male writers just aren't capable of writing material that appeals to the audience? I'm not going to assert any of the above is so. I just thought there were some interesting parallels. So far as I know, no one is complaining about bias or imbalance.   Chris Dodson Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 11:29 pm:    PM, if you truly think Sheila Williams believes women are intellectually inferior to men, I would kindly suggest you pull your head out of your ass. Her record speaks for itself.   GSH Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:48 am:    To continue the process of lightening up, here's a page about male romance writers, wherein several bemoan their problems with gender stereotyping. And here's Leigh Greenwood's webpage. (Check out his covers.) In the context of our discussion I find the two sites amusing.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 06:17 am:    Charlie--- You're stupid, you're an a-hole, and your stories are the worst in the business because none of them include me as a character. I don't mean any of that (obviously!), but I'm trying to give you a taste of how it feels on my end to receive a complaint about being sexist. I'm sure you're correct that it would work great to say something polite and supportive, instead of ignoring the insult, when someone asks me about any gender imbalance in F&SF. But here's the part you're not grasping, Charlie. No one says it to me. The comments I hear are, as I said before, comments that are passed on to me third-hand by friends, or they're posts that people make in their own blogs. For instance, you mentioned upthread how it would have been a nice gesture for me to make a statement after the slush bomb. Problem is, I don't know when the slush bomb occurred, I don't know who was involved in it, and in order to do my job well and assess submissions without pre-judging them, I don't want to know. (Am I really going to be able to judge so-and-so's submissions well if I know that she only sent it to me to test me?) The only person who told me she participated in the slush bomb is a writer who spoke with me at Worldcon last summer. She was kind of apologetic about it and I didn't remember her story very well (or perhaps I hadn't even read it at that point), so we didn't speak for long. The reason I started this thread is because your comments and one other writer's comments in the Truesdale thread made me realize that some people might be taking the whole Slush Bomb thing as proof of anything more than that John and I do our best to consider every submission. Up to now, I figured people were smart enough to make up their own minds on this subject. But your posts---and I appreciate the efforts you've made to shed light on the subject---suggest that memes are going around the blogosphere that might be giving some people a false impression. So now I'm here, spending time I should be using elsewhere, trying to explain to people who all say they don't think I'm sexist that I'm not sexist. Is it any wonder why I think it's a better use of my time to ignore the topic? One more point, an important one: all the comments I've heard, with the exception of one blog entry you pointed me to a couple of years ago, have come from writers. I'm sure they're all readers too, but every comment I've heard (and we're talking here about half a dozen, I think) has come from a writer whose work I've turned down. These comments are not coming in with the subscription mail; they are, from what I can tell, circulating among the writing community only. If that's a false perception, please share examples with me. After working as publisher for 6-1/2 years, I think I've developed a fairly good sense of what's working for the readers and what isn't---but of course I don't hear from the people who don't read the magazine. PM--- The guidelines really aren't the issue here. If you don't want to listen to Ellen or to me on the subject, then let me add this: the guidelines we use are basically the same ones Kris Rusch used. I think they're the same basic guidelines that Ed Ferman and Anthony Boucher used, too. GSH--- Sorry I can't help continue lightening this thread. Bringing romance fiction into the discussion is a good idea, along with "chick-lit," and Julie Phillips's Tiptree bio, and . . . well, as I said in my first post in this thread, I'm not sure a message board thread is a great place for this sort of discussion. Would that I were wrong.   PM Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 06:46 am:    Chris, I didn't say that Sheila believed that women are intellectually inferior to men. Just as you'll still find today women who believe that women should not take jobs and should get married, raise children, etc. Now I'm not suggesting that any women on this thread agree with those positions. What I am saying is that women hold various beliefs and that Sheila appears to be saying that if the feminists are made welcome that she no longer feels welcome. That would be unfortunate as everyone should feel welcome. GVG your point helps to make the point for those who will say that racism/sexism/etc were an even greater problem then and that to continue to maintain those guidelines perpetuates etc., etc. GVG, I agree with you that your best defense is to point to what's been published in F&SF.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 06:48 am:    How the hell can Asimov's be biased against women with Shelia Williams in charge of it? First, I never said Sheila Williams was biased, nor did I say that Asimov's was biased. Second, I said that there is a perception based on the small number of stories in the big 3 from women writers, that there is a bias against women writers in SF. Third, I said it was a perception that may be wrong, but that nonetheless may also be preventing women from submitting. Fourth, most new writers don't know any of the editors from a hole in the ground and have no way of knowing whether they do or do not have a bias. All a new writer can do is look at the pages of the magazine or read the website (and hopefully NOT Dave's column) to judge. Finally, Murphy -- you say you took gender studies in university and you have to ask that question?   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 06:52 am:    Oh, and just because I'm a bit slow without enough caffeine in my system -- doesn't your statement imply that when there is a man in charge that bias is possible? If you read on the other thread, I posted links to research studies that showed that when given identical essays to study, one by an apparent male and one by a female, the male students graded the male essays more favorably than the ones by women, even though there were a similar number of errors. Perception that men's work is better regardless of all other information to the contrary is an example of how bias works.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 08:03 am:    PM wrote: Steven, guess you've never met any women who believe that women are intellectually inferior to men. Umm, not quite sure what to make of this comment. Maybe it is because my mom was the main figure in my life, a strong woman, sharp as a tack (most days) yet struggled with the whole "I'm a dummy" thing because all the men in her life said she was (except me, of course). I've prodded, kicked, pulled, screamed and done everything I can to get her into the same creative writing class I've been taking for nearly two years now. The same class that helped my craft my first sale to Interzone. She won't go. She has excuses. I love my mother dearly, but I can't lead her to water. I don't see how different submission guidelines change anything. If someone, anyone, thinks they aren't capable of doing something, they will not try. That is why most wannabe writers, regardless of gender, remain wannabe writers. I meet wannabe writers all the time. And they all have excuses. I do not see why Editors should coddle them, prod them, persuade them, beg them, plead or anything else. One of the key ingredients of being a writer is being internally stubborn enough to want to continue in the face of utter madness and continual failure while everyone around you, to include assholes that already are writers, tell you that you will never make it, never sell, never succeed. This is true regardless of the plumbing. And getting back to your primary quote above, there is no shortage of men who feel inferior to women. These days, that number is probably growing. Regardless of what the malfunction is, mental or otherwise, it is the writer's job to overcome it. Either by writing stories that will sell, evading markets that are outright hostile (I evade SH like the fucking plague) or finding new markets. It isn't anyone else's job to hold your hand, wipe your ass, and help you breathe. Being a Writer is not a Customer Service Industry position and the Editor isn't in the Service Industry. They are in the publishing industry. You, the writer, supply product. The READER and the EDITOR are the customer. Not the Writer. Gender has not a thing to do with it. And I'm the type of person that if I were a woman, I'd send my stuff out in the face of opposition anyway because that is just the kind of asshole I am.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 08:07 am:    Elizabeth, it is precisely because I took Gender Studies courses that I ask the question. Further, one of my profs agrees with me. She pretty much would probably say the same thing if I showed her this thread. Get over it is what her likely response would be. Matches mine.   Sheila Finch Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 09:08 am:    It occurs to me that there is a time-honorerd way for women to get published in the face of this -- apparently -- overwhelming bias against them: Adopt a male pseudonym. Worked for George Eliot and any numbr of others. :-) Then they can triumphantly unveil, so to speak, and embarrass Gordon and SheilaW, (and other sexist pigs) in public.   K. Tempest Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 10:57 am:    1 - If someone calls another person a "Sexist" it is NOT the same as pointing out that their practices reveal a Gender Bias. Gender Bias does not always equal Sexism (though sometimes it does). Maybe folks would be a bit less defensive if they (a) stopped having allergic reactions to having an 'ist' thrown at them and (b) thought carefully on the difference between bias and prejudice. 2 - Gordon, you claim that no one has ever said to you, directly, that they feel you have a Gender Bias/are Sexist. That's not true - I have. Not the sexist bit, the gb bit. Though you may not remember (which is understandable). We had a lengthy conversation on the perceived gender bias at F&SF at Westercon a few years ago. I even remember your response. 3 - Perhaps your anger/annoyance/sadness/whatever at being labeled a sexist stems from your perception that people are saying things about you but never to your face. Understandable. I hate it when people diss me behind my back, too. However, up until this moment I've never had an inkling that you (a) cared much at all about this issue and (b) would do anything about it even if you did. Furthermore, it takes a lot of courage to go up to an editor you don't know and hope to sell to someday and say "I feel like you're biased against women." I spend a lot of time having discussions about volatile topics such as race/racism, gender/sexism, and the scourge of white privilege on the land. There are people out there who will happily chat away about these topics and remain calm, even-tempered, and open-minded. But there are so many more who immediately go on the defensive, or go into attack mode. "How dare you suggest I am not a Sensitive New-Age Male(tm)! I have three black friends and a daughter!" And the conversation devolves from there. How exactly are people who don't know you supposed to figure out which one of these people you are? For many people, that's a key bit of info to have before going into a conversation of this nature. Now me, I'm not shy. Also, when I spoke to you about this at Westercon I was writing an article *about* gender bias in SF. Therefore I didn't have to make it personal. Not everyone can be writing an article, so to speak. 4 - writers vs. readers It's probably true that, on this topic, you're going to hear more from writers than readers. But the way you phrased that paragraph, it feels to me like you're trying to dismiss your critics by claiming they're all just bitterbottoms about being rejected. I'm sorry, that won't fly. You may not hear from readers about this for several reasons - they don't notice, they don't care, or they vote with their wallets. As in, they do not buy or subscribe. As a consumer of media, I know full well the futility of complaining about something I don't like in a show or magazine. My one little subscription doesn't matter to a media conglomerate. My lost Nielsen point doesn't matter to a network exec. Only when groups of people - really loud people - get together and complain is attention paid. Therefore, the only thing I can do as a single person who doesn't like something in media is to stop supporting. I'm not alone in this. You can't really know how many people just do not buy, read, or subscribe to F&SF because of this issue. It may be 10 or it may be 100. I don't know. I'm just sayin'. Writers are a vocal bunch, so you're going to hear more from us. Plus, this is a community discussion. And you're part of the community. The reading and writing communities do not always overlap. 5 - Gordon, you're free to spend your time elsewhere doing other things. I certainly shouldn't be here, but I'm procrastinating. But I really feel like it would benefit you and many other people if you took a step back, calmed down, and come back at this with a different frame of mind. The attitude you've displayed here is so typical of the attitudes I encounter in my other life as the Angry Black Woman. All the time I see people who come from some privileged position - in regards to race, or gender, or class, or whatever - who are, on one level, trying to address issues they aren't aware of. But on another level what they really want is to find a way to prove to themselves that their current worldview is correct and they only need a slight course correction. A band-aid, not a cast. And, I must say, that I've rarely seen an instance where such people did not need some kind of major paradigm shift. That may not be the case here. But whenever I see such familiar language the alarm bells start to ring. And now that I've completely ruined my reputation as a writer, I think I'll go back to the work I'm avoiding.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 11:31 am:    Elizabeth, it is precisely because I took Gender Studies courses that I ask the question. Well, then, I'd have to question whether you actually "learned" anything. It is possible for women to internalize gender bias towards their own sex. It is possible, Murphy, nad has been documented. If your instructors were worth a pinch of salt, they would have informed you of studies showing this to be the case. Not every woman is a feminist, nor supports the goals of eradicating gender bias or sexism. Some deny it even exists or is a problem. Some hate or are prejudiced against women as much as some men. Further, one of my profs agrees with me. She pretty much would probably say the same thing if I showed her this thread. Get over it is what her likely response would be. That says it all. Matches mine. No surprise there, Murph.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 11:48 am:    Wasn't it Silverberg who claimed that James Tiptree Jr's writing was "ineluctably male" and that Tiptree could not be a woman as rumors at the time were suggesting? Obviously there was a sentiment at the time that men and women wrote differently enough for their gender to be determined. I think that we have moved beyond this level of gender bias to a degree, but do I think it has been eradicated? Not for a moment. There are too many recent studies that show it is alive and flourishing, against women and men, but in different ways and with different outcomes. Men who want to write romance may perceive that they face the same kind of problem getting published in romance as women may feel getting published in science fiction. Gender bias towards writers and their works is not just bad because it's morally or ethically wrong -- it actually weakens the industry by depriving it of hearing all talented voices regardless of the identity of the artist. If there are talented women writers out there who have written off the big 3 magazines because of a perceived gender bias against women, the magazines and readers lose out. It's not a question of women being poor sports or whiners -- it's a rational decision based on perception of gender bias. It may be a mis-perception, but the fact it exists is a problem that should be addressed if an editor truly cares to get the very best works of short fiction for the magazine. Unless, of course, the editor doesn't think that women are equally talented and potentially as good at writing science fiction as men . . .   Hannah Wolf Bowen Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:23 pm:    I'm a little reluctant to post here because I won't have any time to come back until late tonight at the earliest, and I hate to hit-and-run. But I think it's maybe worth nothing that unconscious bias is a (the?) real concern here. I don't for a second believe that anyone is being "intentionally exclud[ed]." But I do believe that there are an awful lot of factors that goes into taste and preference. I wouldn't call it sexism if GVG tends to prefer, for example, father/son stories over mother/daughter ones. (As mentioned above, and as he said on a panel I attended once--I think at the Boston Worldcon, though I couldn't swear to the location.) But it may be worth considering what goes into such a preference, and possibly making an effort to stretch it some. I don't know. I believe that editors should buy the stories that they love, and I believe that there should be space for top-notch stories from alllll sorts of people, and I believe that the field is responsible for creating and encouraging its own diversity, and I believe that writers shouldn't have to be coddled. These beliefs bump into each other, and I'm not always sure how to reconcile them. I don't mean to say above that there are easy answers--just that I think it's worth asking the questions. (Far as Truesdale columns goes...I haven't read everything the man's written, but I've stumbled across some. It doesn't struck me as particularly clever or provocative. I can't take it seriously enough to be provoked. (I can [often do] disagree with other F&SF columnists; that's not the problem. Give me a good well-reasoned argument and man, I'll be right there. The problem is that this is...not that. And so it's just not my idea of a good impression for the magazine to make.)   Rachel Swirsky Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:28 pm:    Analogs to race can be troubling, and this certainly isn't a direct analogy, but if you had published an editorial claiming that all black people were "lying n*s" then you would be called to task for that. You're not required to agree with everything you publish, of course, and granted I'm months behind in my reading on everything -- but when the magazine does not regularly publish feminist critique, but does publish something like Truesdale's execrable screed, then the magazine will read as having an anti-feminist bias in editorial. The "Imus thing" was an example of money voting, through sponsors, that treating black women in the way Imus had treated them for years (though the incident came to a head with his infamous comment) was unacceptable. The sponsors threatened to pull; the station made its decision. I may be the only subscriber (sponsor in the radio analogy) who says they'll pull, but I do say that. What you choose to do with that information is your business.   Rachel Swirsky Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:55 pm:    By the way, in re: slush bomb -- one of my critiques of it was that it was framed as something that was about F&SF, and not about gender bias in the field in general. This year's slush bomb is aimed at Analog. It's about a bunch of things, but one of them is just to get women's work into the submissions pile.   Amy Sisson Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 01:01 pm:    I thought the slush bomb was a dumb idea -- as Rachel says, it certainly was perceived by many as being about F&SF. I would be happier if the slush bomb idea was "hey women writers, submit EVERYWHERE in May!" But even that bugs me -- I really don't understand why women writers need special encouragement to submit at a special time of year. I subscribe to the Big Three, and to lots of smaller magazines, and I submit to all of them too. I have never for one second thought that my gender has had any bearing on my chances. I agree 100% with Ellen on the guidelines issue. Writers should not need or ask for personal engraved invitations to submit, one that specifically lists all of THEIR personal demographic qualities. The reason job listings say "all are welcome and encouraged to apply" is because employers are afraid of lawsuits. Also, the few people I know who say they've stopped submitting to F&SF have specifically said it was because they were tired of getting rejected there. Some of these were men. I'm not terribly sympathetic.   Rachel Swirsky Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 01:24 pm:    Hi Amy, I do think gender bias is real. It permeates society; it's not unique to the science fiction field, and certainly not to F&SF. It's ubiquitous and functions on a non-overt level of culture. It has to be actively rejected. The slush bomb functions, in my opinion, as at least these things (and probably more): 1) A community effort which may inspire some women to write about subjects and submit to places that might otherwise be off their horizons. 2) A protest, meant to call attention to the issue of gender bias. 3) A call to women to submit to markets that women specifically may be avoiding. This is salient with F&SF; I think we all know women who refuse to submit to the magazine. It is salient with Analog - a lot of women I know are wary of hard SF, or of Analog's boys-with-toys image. I'm helping to organize this year's effort, but I don't know what will happen, say, next year. I would think Harper's would be an excellent choice, but people who don't write cross-genre may disagree. * Some of my thoughts about last year's slush bomb are collected in an essay coming out in Aqueduct Press's anthology about Wiscon 30, edited by L. Timmel Duchamp.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 01:35 pm:    >>Wasn't it Silverberg who claimed that James Tiptree Jr's writing was "ineluctably male" and that Tiptree could not be a woman as rumors at the time were suggesting? >> Elizabeth, I'm not an expert on this, but it was most writers at the time. The field was considerably smaller - most, if not all, were very aware of Tiptree's work and had corresponded with Tiptree or written commentary on the work, believing her to be "he." I read an older compilation of "Year's Best," in which Isaac Asimov went on at length in the introduction about what a "guy's guy" writer Tiptree was. I looked into it a little, because I wondered what the reaction would have been when her identity was made known for certain. I saw no indication of hostility when people learned they had made a wrong assumption. But I'm equally sure some people just had to be angered also, although I don't know of, and haven't read, comments where anyone shows it. I think the featuring of the "Dear Starbear" letters in last September's issue certainly would have some bearing - would it not? It was F & SF these letters appeared in, in conjunction with the release of that wonderful biography. Again, much of this commentary is regarding SF writers. I think when overall, fantasy, horror, and other types of speculative fiction are considered, the big weight of male v. female isn't the same. I've stated before that the first year I attended the Writers of the Future event, there were 16 writers (including 4 published finalists - i.e., Ron, Scott, me and somebody else we can't recall) and there were five female writers out of the group - 37%. But one woman didn't attend, lowering it to four women and twelve men actually present for the week's workshop and awards. Well, and the rest is just history. I wouldn't trade the friendships I made at that time for anything. The next year, 1999, they didn't publish any finalists. It was just twelve "winners." There were only two women that next year, and ten men. That's 20%. More to the point, I was the only female SCIENCE FICTION writer both times. To my recollection, I was the only female SCIENCE FICTION writer at Clarion in 1984. Now I seriously cannot recall how many women vs. men at Clarion, but there it wasn't half female. I think it was probably 30-40% female or so. Most people working in SF right now should have a pretty good idea of how drastically the field has shrunk. It's up to us as writers to evaluate what's out there, to be part of the dialog, and to inform ourselves. I've said for the last time what I've done - there are at least six graduates of my classes who've been WoTF winners in more recent years, and some pretty darn good prize winners and people who've published a lot, in terms of short fiction. As a writer myself, I only recently moved with seriousness and dedication from writing short fiction to writing novels. From very early on, I absolutely followed an organized plan for myself, for my work, for working on different types of stories, refining and improving them - refining and improving as many aspects of my writing as I could. One of the areas I most greatly strengthened in the past five years was research. Many writers offer input and feedback about that; I consider it essential to writing professional, top-quality fiction. There is no substitute. And reading this commentary for the most part might make me feel like I had less self-esteem than I in fact, do have. Mary Rickert, for heaven's sake, just a brilliant, delicate, masterful short fiction writer with so much to say - she said she felt like a "cipher." People are like, "Why don't yew diskuss them storries?" Um, yeah. My message has always been consistent. It has never changed. I felt so good this a.m. to see another young woman achieving results in the Writers of the Future contest, speaking clearly about her own plan for her work, how she consciously was choosing to write the best stories she could. My message has always been: consciousness-raise through the work. What we write is what's important, not "us." That's my position on the "slush bomb," on Gordon, on all of it. I renewed my subscription last week.   Sheila Finch Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 02:11 pm:    Would somebody like to explain what the "slush bomb" was? I've never heard of it.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 02:30 pm:    >>Would somebody like to explain what the "slush bomb" was? I've never heard of it.>> OK, last year, I heard that some female writers were getting together to "slush bomb" F & SF - i.e., each was going to, in an organized fashion, submit a story on a specific day. I don't really think I realized that Charlie Finlay was organizing it. I thought it kind of happened spontaneously, as opposed to being "organized." So there's that for how smart I am. But there was commentary on Jed Hartman's blog - and I went there, saw what people were saying, and I said - I support people writing their best, and submitting, and of course we want to see more good female writers, but I think I sort of said that I didn't think it was the best idea. I thought at the time, and still do, that the project could cause good work, which, if it was sent in "normally" (i.e., when the author finished it under ordinary circumstances and thought it was ready to be sent out) might be bought, to be "lost in the shuffle." At the time, I thought that hundreds might be doing this - and it kind of flies in the face of - study your markets, decide what type of work you have that would fit, etc. I thought it might make some difficult days for John Adams or create a backlog of some type. This year, it's supposed to be in August, and it's supposed to be "aimed at" Analog/Stan Schmidt. Rachel Swirsky who has been posting here is organizing it. Obviously I'm not "Analog Mafia" so what am I going to say? I think if it encourages writers who've never submitted to Analog before to try, that's a good thing. I think they should kind of read Analog first, too! They could try starting with the Brain Planet or Collins (Ron, More Lines). Catherine Asaro and Maya Bohnhoff also regularly have stories there. Hopefully they will quickly see how professional Stan is if they have not tried there before. I am not taking the "slush bomb" as being writers published previously, either. Maybe some who've been in F & SF or Analog before are participating.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 02:39 pm:    I'm specifically speaking to Analog and recommending specific writers that those interested in selling to the publication for a couple of reasons. First, some "Analog Mafia" members regularly have work in the magazine that wouldn't be of interest from a "new writer." In other words, they write types of stories that might be thought to be typical of Analog, but they are in fact typical of that writer, who is a long-time Analog mainstay. Brian Plante recently began publishing in Analog again, as did Ron Collins - and Catherine and Maya might be surprising to some slush bombers, considering the regularity with which their work appears in Analog, and their popularity with the readers.   K. Tempest Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 02:59 pm:    You know, Amy (Casil), I don't think that even if hundreds of women all submitted on the same day it would affect JJA's or GVG's ability to determine if any story was a good fit for F&SF. To suggest that makes it sound like, in that scenario, one or the other would look around and say "Goodamn, there's too much slush here! I'm rejecting anything that uses the the word 'the' more than three times on the first page!" The point of the slush bomb, as I understood it, was to get more women to submit to F&SF. because several female authors - those who've been published in other notable markets and whose writing ability isn't in question - stated that they don't send stories there. If F&SF is missing out on stories it would have bought if only GVG had seen them, then that's bad for the magazine. But the impression I came away with is that the women who figured F&SF wasn't interested in the kind of stories they write were spot on in that impression.   Sheila Finch Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 03:01 pm:    Thank you, Amy. Let me see if I understand this: people (women only or also men?) are being encouraged to send in their material to certain markets. Okay, no problem so far. Their *best* material, I imagine, after carefully studying what those markets buy. Right? So what's the big deal? Wouldn't a writer wanting to get published do this anyway? Why would anyone find this (being part of a deluge on an editor's desk) a better avenue to a sale than a normal submission process? (The choice of the word "bomb" seems rather ominous, if you ask me.)   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 03:39 pm:    >>You know, Amy (Casil), I don't think that even if hundreds of women all submitted on the same day it would affect JJA's or GVG's ability to determine if any story was a good fit for F&SF. To suggest that makes it sound like, in that scenario, one or the other would look around and say "Goodamn, there's too much slush here! I'm rejecting anything that uses the the word 'the' more than three times on the first page!" >> Well - that's pretty much exactly what I thought. I thought there would be such a huge amount that somebody might have a chance of being "lost in the shuffle." Now I see that there were 50 writers who officially participated last year and I don't think that's so many anybody would get lost in the shuffle. >>The point of the slush bomb, as I understood it, was to get more women to submit to F&SF. because several female authors - those who've been published in other notable markets and whose writing ability isn't in question - stated that they don't send stories there. >> I saw that Liz Williams said that. She said, specifically though, that Gordon had individually written her and said he didn't care for what she was writing about. So - you can pick or choose in those circumstances. Write something different? Write differently? How? What? When? Why? Or just decide - that's not the best market for you. My "targeting" of F & SF consisted of, this was always the in-genre publication where my favorite writers and types of stories had historically appeared. Over the years, I've developed a liking for all of the other publications. I give every writer a fair shot; I try to read with a sympathetic and supportive eye. I did consciously set a goal to win the Writers of the Future contest and I followed an organized personal plan in that regard. It worked. I honestly don't know how I managed it at the last minute I possibly could have done that, but it happened. I've set a lot of other goals, too - and when I do set it, it's solid. I've managed to make the few that I did consciously set forth, and write down for myself. I think if "slush bombing" is part of somebody's plan, they feel it's appropriate, or if they just decide it would be fun or worth a try -- this isn't wrong or bad. I just think, overall, for everybody to make progress, it's best to be more organized on a personal level. Some people do get more out of participating in groups. They get a lot out of feedback from others. And this goes up and down with time, changes in one's writing and interests and so-on. I was part of "The Gang of Four" and we most certainly did have some organization as to what we sent, where and when, and we definitely helped each other. So, if this is part of it -- why not? It's just my old mantra, though -- focus on what you're saying, focus on what's important to you. There's no power on earth can stop you if you remain true to that.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 04:36 pm:    Elizabeth L, my transcripts would argue otherwise. So would my gender prof (she's pictured at my blog, though not named). You still really don't know what I write, or how I think even after all these years of trying to figure it out. You should quit. You're never going to figure it out because I do audibles all the time. BTW, did you get your subscription to Interzone yet, Elizabeth? Might be some pretty juicy action there gender wise. Course, knowing this crowd, I'll probably get slapped with a brick that says, "Stereotype." Here is a question I want answered. Is it just American and Canadians that are bitching about this particular issue or do we have an Aussie/UK/Kiwi/wherever the hell else you are a citizen of crowd mixed in here? I've noticed a distinct difference in the way American/Canadians react to the standard PC Nazi issues as compared to the other groups. Or maybe I just haven't run into any rabid, frothing Aussie Femmes yet.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 04:42 pm:    BTW, I seem to recall JJA did a blog entry with a photograph that showed the slush bomb submissions. Seemed like he got fifty or so. I could go look, but this ain't grad school and I ain't paid by the word here.   K. Tempest Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 05:07 pm:    I ain't paid by the word here. mmm... perhaps then you should chose your words more carefully. Or just stop using them and sit quietly in the corner. I don't know you from a hole in the ground, but anyone who uses the term PC Nazi is practically waving a flag that says "Ignorant and loud about it". I mean, seriously, people who are polite and aware of how folks feel/think are the same as people who shoved 6 million Jews into ovens? That's so beyond rational it's almost not worth replying to you. But someone needed to say that and it might as well be me. You truly seem unable to have a calm and rational discussion with anyone here. Don't you worry that you're not being a credit to your race? Snark aside - seriously, you act like a 10 year old. And you wouldn't use that language or expose your ignorance this way if all of us were sitting at a dinner table. Might want to think about that.   Lucius Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 06:16 pm:    You're back again, Murphy? You think you're a thorn in the side of liberals, but all you really are is an incredible moron. You sit there making noises, Yawp, Yawp, Yawp, the same noises no matter the subject, and think it's political commentary. You sounded more in tune when you were defending the Bush admin and pretending to be a war hero. You sold a short story? That's proof that even a monkey can fart the Star Spangled Banner if you feed it enough beans. The poor editor...he's gonna wake up some morning and say, "My God! I bought a story from SFM. Just shoot me now!" Oh, well. I'm sure in another ten years you'll sell another story and then you'll have a new reason to brag on yourself. I wish I had time for you, but I don't, so let me just say to people that you shouldn't take this scumbag wannabe seriously. He's just a little man who likes to puff himself up and make a stink in lieu of having anything whatsoever to offer the world. He tries to pretend he's a real boy, but he lives all alone and wets his bed. Cyberspace is full of Amazing Ozs who dwell in pretend architectures, toy cities in which they are the only immensity. Stephen Francis Murphy is such a pathetic creature. He's not worth your bother.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 06:39 pm:    Lucius, did you stop taking your paxil, or whatever pill they give pukes with clinical depression these days? Just goes to show that some assholes never overcome being assholes. Oh, that was nasty of me, wasn't it? As for poor editors, Jesus, Lucius, I don't say nasty things about your fiction (violates one of my personal rules). But I could if it will make you feel better. Or maybe not. (Murph checks his watch) I'm kinda surprised Jeremy hasn't hopped on. This little back and forth has been in progress for a few days now. He must be off sweating his fat ass off in one of those pinstriped mobster monstrosities he likes to stuff himself into. Shit never changes here at the Night Shade (there, was very careful to make it two words lest some corpulent fuck have a coronary over it).   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 06:41 pm:    Kay, why don't you go back to your teapot?   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 07:43 pm:    Tempest, I'm fine and calm and I appreciate your comments. I most certainly did need to blow off some steam about the Slush Bomb. I'm amazed to read here that there's another Slush Bomb effort in the works. Did anyone ask me how the first one looked from my perspective? Or JJA? When Charlie first mentioned the concept, I was all in favor of getting more submissions from women, but in practice I think it was---as far as I could determine---a dud instead of a bomb. As far as serving as "A protest, meant to call attention to the issue of gender bias.", I don't see how the Slush Bomb would have worked (unless it did so by generating this discussion . . . but it didn't directly generate it). I am aware of gender bias issues, I do try to grow as an editor, and if anyone wanted to, say, point out that three of the last five stories by women that I've published had male protagonists, I'd be interested in hearing that discussion. But what I've objected to is being called a sexist, which isn't the same thing. (And Tempest, I do remember our discussion about gender bias . . . at a KGB reading, wasn't it?) I don't discriminate against submissions based on the gender of the author. I'm surprised to learn about Liz Williams's comments, though now that I hear of it, some other comments I heard at World Fantasy Con make more sense. I never told Liz that "I didn't care for what she was writing about." Looking through my records, I see that I sent her a longer than average letter in May 2004 explaining specifically what hadn't worked for me in her recent submissions. My comments were meant to be constructive; three years later, they still look constructive to me. If Liz read the comments as meaning that I wasn't interested in her work, then perhaps she read something into my letter that wasn't there, or perhaps it was a case where my comments were so far out of synch with what she's trying to do with her stories that she concluded we'll never connect. (For all I know, when I said, "This isn't what's working", she read it and said, "That isn't supposed to be working. That's the opposite of what I'm trying to do.") What was that quote Betty Ballantine said at the Hugos last year? She was quoting Saxe Commins to the effect of, "An editor's job is to help a writer write the book they meant to write. The hard part is just figuring out what that book is." I think I've mangled the quote, but the point is that my aim was to help Liz see what I thought wasn't working in the stories she submitted to me. If I failed or if Liz thinks my suggestions were idiotic, that's Liz's business and her prerogative---I certainly make mistakes---but if anyone wants to tell me I'm sexist for trying to offer constructive comments on her submission, I disagree.   Anna Feruglio Dal Dan Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 10:35 pm:    Here is a question I want answered. Is it just American and Canadians that are bitching about this particular issue or do we have an Aussie/UK/Kiwi/wherever the hell else you are a citizen of crowd mixed in here? Well, I am either UK or an Italian, however you wanna look at it, and I agree with Tempest about you and then some. I've noticed a distinct difference in the way American/Canadians react to the standard PC Nazi issues as compared to the other groups. My experience of Western World non-American fandom is that it is generally not terribly like your depiction of it. I you take the American fandom, chop off anything that is to the right of, oh, let's see... Jed Hartman, you have an idea of what Brit fandom is like. I read upstream that you seem to think that Richard Morgan is some sort of outlier in British fandom. I would like to disabuse you of this notion. Richard Morgan is right smack in the middle of the social/political spectrum - perhaps a bit too suspiciously macho in his choice of subject matter for many. Or maybe I just haven't run into any rabid, frothing Aussie Femmes yet. I have. I think the problem is that they tend to think discussing with the likes of you is a waste of time. Which it probably is, but hey, you did ask for people to answer your question.   Anna Feruglio Dal Dan Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 11:05 pm:    What was that quote Betty Ballantine said at the Hugos last year? She was quoting Saxe Commins to the effect of, "An editor's job is to help a writer write the book they meant to write. The hard part is just figuring out what that book is." I think I've mangled the quote, but the point is that my aim was to help Liz see what I thought wasn't working in the stories she submitted to me. If I failed or if Liz thinks my suggestions were idiotic, that's Liz's business and her prerogative---I certainly make mistakes---but if anyone wants to tell me I'm sexist for trying to offer constructive comments on her submission, I disagree. It depends on what kind of constructive criticism it was. I am going to exaggerate here for the sake of clarity, but if it ran along the lines of "All this time spent on describing scenes of domesticity really detracts from the rather exciting plot about the siege of the city"' you can probably see why it may be construed as "girls cooties surgery". Of course you won't have said anything this crude - it was a deliberately simplistic example, but I'm sure you get the idea of how somebody could see bias in what is offered as completely neutral criticism. A good friend of mine back in Italy finally stopped writing because, among other things, he kept getting rejections from Italian fanzines (the only publishing venue in Italy) that told him he wrote beautifully but in a rather too "American" way and could he drop all that clunky science and concentrate on social and psychological issues instead? This advice came from people genuinely convinced that they were helping him overcome the shackles of imitating foreign examples and find his own genuine voice. I mean, these are crude examples, and they seem to indicate ignorance on one side and righteousness on the other - but there is not objective, universal meter of what is "good" in fiction, which is why people submit a story to a different editor after one rejected it. And I do not believe that criticism can (or should, indeed) be independent of the character and tastes of those who offer it. I think in general, if one considers that about half the human race is female, and rates of literacy are in advanced society about equal, one should wonder at where the gender bias in writers (and I think readers, although I have no hard data on hand here) comes from. One could also look around and notice that the disproportion of male representation is not confined to the Hugo shortlist. For example, in one of London's major investment banks last year, of the 29 people invited to become partners, 28 were men and one was a woman. Freak statistical occurrence? One should consider also that, at entry level, the ratio is about 50:50, and that as has been noticed female students tend to outperform men up to college levels. Or one can muse on the fact that there are no women CEO of the first 100 companies in the FTSE 100. Coincidence? Now there are two possible explanation of these sort of facts: 1. There is a generalized, innate bias that works against women, robbing them of an equal chance of professional and artistical realization; 2. Women are intellectually inferior. I believe that, indeed, holding the second proposition as true is called sexism (especially as there is a certain amount of data, including the abovementioned outperformance of female students at all levels of education, and increasingly so even in the hard sciences, to disprove it.) If one does not hold the second position, then patting oneself on the back and telling oneself that the bias is certainly no fault of theirs is easy, in in large part true (just as it is true that the weight of one single vote on the outcome of an election is as close to nil that makes no difference), but not terribly conducive to changing the situation. Nobody (apart from isolated aberrant examples of reactionary thinking) sits down thinking, hmm, how can I oppress women today? Especially if one IS a woman. But there are several things that one can do, or fail to do, to address the situation. Denying that the situation exists at all is a huge step towards not changing it. On the other hand, seeing what is in front of one's nose is a big step in the right direction. It took a friend who pointed out to me, for example, how completely and utterly white a convention we were in was, for me too see it, and to start thinking that there was something here that was wrong, and that should be addressed. Being white myself, I was blissfully unaware that a problem existed until it was pointed out to me. I think women and men are substantially the same creature, and from every point of view a continuum on a spectrum rather than two different non-communicating worlds. But the experiences and consequently the worldview of women in the Western World is inevitably different from that of men, because we do not live in a society that is gender-neutral. I think therefore it is possible that women might write with different outlooks and concerns, and that this kind of fiction might not appeal to men. This doesn't make the women's fiction "worse" nor does it make the men's taste "wrong". It just means there is a mismatch. In my opinion, however, it would lead to all sorts of good things if more people from the male end of the spectrum were exposed to the narratives of the female end of the spectrum. Kinda like traveling abroad broadens your horizons.   Spencer Pate Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 08:15 am:    Stephen Francis Murphy, if you keep flaming and acting antagonistic, I will ban you.   Spencer Pate Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 09:38 am:    You know, I'm starting to think D.F. Lewis is dead right: people should submit to magazines anonymously and be published anonymously. Then people wouldn't claim that GVG has a gender bias (which *no one* has been able to prove thus far - people have just made baseless implications) because they couldn't tell which authors are male and which are female. It would just be a magazine of good writing, regardless of who writes it.   Hannah Wolf Bowen Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 10:11 am:    >You know, I'm starting to think D.F. Lewis is dead right: people should submit to magazines anonymously and be published anonymously. Doesn't work. I judged a contest, a few years ago, in which identifying details were stripped off of stories before the judges ever saw 'em. I more recently watched another contest, too, where same. In both cases, with multiple stories...I knew without asking exactly who the author was. It was a deeply icky feel; it felt like cheating, even though I hadn't cheated...just read a lot.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 10:15 am:    Spencer, feel free to ban me. Be another first in my book.   Spencer Pate Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 10:20 am:    Thank you for the response, Hannah. I don't really know about the logistics of anonymous submissions, but it seems to work for D.F. Lewis's NEMONYMOUS. I think he has the writers create free email accounts to send him the stories. As for telling who the authors are, I think part of the fun is having writers play around with their styles, subject matter, and identities. In the issue of NEMONYMOUS I read, I wasn't able to tell who any of the authors were except for one (Rhys Hughes).   Lucius Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 10:26 am:    Let the poor thing light his farts here, Spencer. It affords him so much glee to see the gas flare and may give him cause to change his underwear. That would be yet another first.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 11:18 am:    ...may give him cause to change his underwear. Thanks. Thanks a lot. How am I supposed to get that image out of my head?   PM Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 11:27 am:    My concern is one of global warming. No wonder he asked if anyone from England or Europe was reading! Be cool Steven...for all mankind   Spencer Pate Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 02:50 pm:    Yeah, Lucius, I guess it's not worth it. :-)   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 05:04 pm:    Gordon, I read the blog entry where Liz Williams discussed the situation you refer to. I think she took your letter as pretty much, "That is just the way the cookie crumbles," not a "well, that proves it about Gordon." I think her blog entry has been taken out of context if you ask me. She seemed rather blaise about the whole thing. More over (before I got sidetracked by the silliness here) I was wondering what established writers like Nancy Kress, Connie Willis and others think about the whole thing? Further, I deeply suspect their views on the situation as a whole are going to be fairly reflective of those already expressed by Ellen Datlow. P.S. after the preview: I didn't get banned. Well, it would have proved another bit of hyprocrisy on the part of this particular community if I had been.   Elizabeth L Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 07:52 pm:    I have to admit that I've always taken for granted that there are fewer women SF writers and and it seemed reasonable that there would be fewer women published in SF magazines. I wasn't all that surprised to see fewer stories in Asimov's and F&SF when I started reading both magazines a half-dozen years ago, and frankly, when I got rejected, I assumed it was because I am a newish writer who needs to improve my writing. I didn't think it was because I was a woman. I studied science in university at a time when women made up less than one-third of science majors and so I am used to being in the minority. However, I also studied gender and politics in university and know a great deal about gender bias. I'm familiar with a lot of the research. When I first heard other women writers suggesting that the big 3 (Asimov's, F&SF, Analog) were biased towards women writers, I took a second look. I had to admit it might be possible, given what I knew about gender bias in other fields, although being a number person, I always want to see cold hard data before I make any firm conclusions. However, upon reflection and after considering the stats that have been gathered on submission rates and publication rates, I think the widely-held perception is just plain wrong -- at least for Asimov's and F&SF. I can't say anything about Analog, because I don't know of any comparable data. I've already commented on F&SF's submission/publication rates for women, and I hope Jed doesn't mind, but I did want remind people of Jed's journal discussion on 3 Sept 2006 re: "Author Gender and Asimov's". Apparently Sheila kept track of submissions for the first full year of her tenure as editor. In 2006, submissions by women writers varied between 27-33% of all stories submitted, and women's stories made up approximately 27% of all stories published in 2006. I did a quick tally of stories that were recognizably female for 2005 and it was about 25%, so the numbers are pretty close for Gardner's last year. I don't know the value of the slush bomb -- I could see it getting on an editor's nerves and possibly being counter-productive in the short run just because of the extra work it entails -- but editor-inconvenience aside, perhaps it might encourage women to submit more and be more competitive all the time rather than just at one point in time. From a review of Asimov's and F&SF stats, it appears that if women submitted more work, their work would be given a fair shake, and that's encouraging. So, I think this debate, as vitriolic as it has been, has been very useful. I believe it's very important to publicize the fact that women writers are generally published in the same proportion as they submit stories in these two magazines. That may correct any mis-perception that these magazines are gender biased, consciously or otherwise. Of course, the other question is this -- why aren't women submitting as often as men? Are fewer women writing SF? Are fewer women writing the kind of SF published in these magazines and so they self-censor and don't submit? Do fewer women write short SF? These are still un-answered questions, and I'm all over bringing more women readers into SF and seeing more women SF writers submit and get published. So,the upshot of this discussion for me is that I am going to blog about the stats and my perception that gender bias is not an issue at these two magazines as a way of encouraging other women writers to grit their teeth and keep submitting.   Sheila Finch Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 09:22 pm:    I couldn't agree with Elizabeth more! Women are stronger than the petty whining that we sometimes hear would suggest. The best advice I ever received was "Don't play victim." Write, submit, write some more and submit your stuff again. If you think Gordon rejected you because you're female (and *everybody* knows females don't write hard SF or whatever), then prove him wrong. Write the best darn SF story ever -- one he can't refuse to buy. I said before, Gordon doesn't buy everything I write, and sometimes I mutter darkly about his view of things. But I have never felt he rejected my work because I was female.   des lewis Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 01:03 am:    Thanks, Spencer, re your mention of 'Nemonymous'. There should be no need for anything like 'Nemonymous' regarding literary politics. In fact Nemonymous was created for 'Aesthetics' reasons rather than possible bias ones. So we're not really talking about a problem per se here. It's a *perceived* problem. And if this in itself is seen as a problem of perception, then the Nemonymous method in issues 1 to 5 (2001-2005) is indeed a solution. There are potentially thousands of submissions (from small and big names alike) and there is little likelihood that the method can be by-passed by the editor recognising the style (as someone suggests above). Even if the editor does suspect who wrote it, there can be no certainty as to the story's authorship in the methods I used previously as the story was categorically contracted before knowing the author's name (and also subsequently read by the paying public before they knew the author's name). It is only a solution to the perceived problem if this method is used by most publications. So it's not likely to happen. Nemonymous is too small to count. And before people say what I say is nonsense, please keep in mind: we're not really talking about a problem per se but a problem, if you see it as a problem at all, of a misperception regarding potential editorial bias which the Nemonymous method, if audited, would completely remove. des   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 06:15 am:    Elizabeth--- I hope I'm beating a falling horse when I say that it doesn't inspire more women to submit stories by making claims that some editors don't buy stories from women (or from any particular group). Very few editors publish stories that aren't submitted to them. Heather Lindsley reminded me recently that I told her writers shouldn't guess what will (or won't) work for an editor. After I bought a second story from her, she said she's convinced. I told her that if I can ever guess my own taste 100%, that'll be the day I pack it in. Also, in my opinion, I don't think it helps the cause if anyone goes around suggesting to new writers that it's going to be easy. Connie Willis spent years learning her craft by writing true confession stories before she broke out big in the SF field in the early '80s. And look at Tiptree---she was brilliant, talented, and had all sorts of connections through her mother, but she didn't really find her voice as a writer until she started doing it as a goof. And even then, it wasn't a story of one success piling on top of another. Ed Ferman turned down "Painwise" before asking Alli to send it back so he could take another look at it. And "The Girl Who Was Plugged In" was rejected so many times that Alli shelved it. I know there are things I could do to attract more submissions if I had world enough and time. Sheree Thomas told me some of the things she did to get submissions for her DARK MATTER anthologies . Many of them were things that I would never have time to do. She wasn't getting 600 submissions a month; F&SF is. More to come later, but I wanted to add these notes while I had a moment.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 07:19 am:    Lucius, I hope you'll forgive me. I want to make a specific point about this topic. Gordon, I read the blog entry where Liz Williams discussed the situation you refer to. I think she took your letter as pretty much, "That is just the way the cookie crumbles," not a "well, that proves it about Gordon." Yes? I had seen that specific comment, and I paraphrased it. Previously, Tempest had said several people had made comments that they no longer submitted to F & SF. I know a number of writers who have made this choice. I can't say I can tie "gender" to any. Some people's work isn't wanted by every single editor. For the most part, these writers have found other markets where their work fits better. That is all that means. It is unprofessional (and counterproductive) for any writer to rail if their work is rejected. That's emphatically not what Liz was doing - also. I think her blog entry has been taken out of context if you ask me. She seemed rather blaise about the whole thing. No, I mentioned it because it was a comment I had seen, and it was not in any way referring to "gender" or "bias." More over (before I got sidetracked by the silliness here) I was wondering what established writers like Nancy Kress, Connie Willis and others think about the whole thing? Further, I deeply suspect their views on the situation as a whole are going to be fairly reflective of those already expressed by Ellen Datlow. This is a classic. Let's let the ones who you'd have to be a trepanned monkey not to know have their say, after dozens of women have spoken up specifically here. This matter can't be closed until these women who everyone, thirty to thirty-five years after they "broke in," now agrees "deserve" their professional reputations -speak up. People have brought up facts. A fair conclusion has probably been reached. But you can't resist trying to dump all over Tempest and/or me. No, I'm not Nancy Kress! Of course I'm not Connie Willis! But my work did appear twice on the cover of F & SF in one year. I am a founding member of the SF-FFWs. If Lucius can't scare ya off - I have news: I might not look the part, but I think I'm scarier than he is. My lifetime mission is to someday be featured on that show, Iconoclasts.   Lucius Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 08:04 am:    I wasn't addressing you, Amy. I was addressing Murphy, with whom I have a longstanding beef. I have no interest in scaring you or anyone else off. As your being scarier than me--I don't doubt it. Murphy, however, is scarier than both of us put together. His blog, Murphy's Pondering Tree, which I was pointed to last night, is a virtual portrait of a psycho in the making. Students of psychopathology are encouraged to study it.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 08:50 am:    I'm going to turn this around, too. Maybe it will give some of the younger women reading here food for thought. I've previously made this point delicately. Since I'm not Connie Willis or Nancy Kress, it's been for the most part, ignored. "Let's call in those established writers . . ." is - can you imagine if something about current male F & SF writers was being discussed, and somebody said, "Well, yeah - let's find out what Frederik Pohl and Jonathan Lethem say." It would be like - what the f!#%%!? What they said THEN - yeah. Other things they'd say now about what's going on with them and their concerns - yeah. But the subject can't be closed until they hold forth on something pertaining to F & SF today? If anyone said that, they'd be thought to be insane, or so hidebound they couldn't move on from twenty-five to fifty years ago. Now, regarding assisting younger female writers to move forward - Lis Wiehl recently wrote a book called The 51% Minority: How Women Are Still Not Equal and What Women Can Do About It. In this book, Lis mentions something called "the Margaret Thatcher Syndrome." By this, she means the tendency for women who've "made it" to the top in previously male-dominated domains to then take on the attitudes of their male counterparts, failing to assist younger women on their way up, or to feel sympathy for them. I do not, at all, see anything like this happening in SF/F. I have never experienced anything remotely similar. I have been assisted equally by more established male and female writers, but there is a tremendous community among female writers. There is support, sharing, and overall positive behavior. Honestly, for all the continuing disparities in the numbers that are participating, those who do participate will find a heartfelt welcome, across the board. So, no Margaret Thatchers that I've ever come across, period. I cannot begin to describe the role that Ursula Le Guin, for example, has played for so many years - in every possible way and in all the right ways. To re-name Nancy Kress in a way that does apply - she has taught at Clarion, she has written so many articles and books, and from what I understand, has always assisted anyone who approached her for guidance and mentoring. I certainly can speak to these topics. I am on the top management team of one of the top charities in the United States. This organization is female-founded and female-run, by a woman who graduated from my -- women's -- college twenty years before me, whose work has influenced public policy and practice in the U.S., and increasingly, worldwide. I am among the top 1% of female income earners nationally and have been for some time (I have to study income statistics at the low end for work - I see the other category automatically). I broke the "executive ceiling" when I was in my mid-twenties. I have in my own way contributed to national policy issues in my field. In addition, I also want to say that - I consistently try in a positive way to indicate what is needed to truly compete. As Sheila has said, women should not "play the victim." There is no benefit to obsess over what one lacks, or to look in shadows for what some other person may have obtained that you feel entitled to. As the aforementioned authors have invested a lifetime of work, talent and effort in building up what they have, so should every author. It's not going to happen instantly. Surely a few people have read my story of submitting every quarter to the Writers of the Future Contest for four solid years. Surely, a few have noticed that I said I wrote from 5:00 to 7:00 every morning when Meredith was small. Today, I have such a strong relationship at work that I am able to work part-time, because the whole organization is committed to being there for me as I try to finish my current novel. This is because I worked so hard that I, in a sense, "earned" the opportunity or chance to do this. I took other career steps too: important ones that I'd avoided out of fear and lack of self-confidence. I have moved forward again. Now Lis Wiehl, just for example, only has three reviews of her book on Amazon. This probably doesn't bode well for her book's sales. However, she's got a little treat review, just like I had. It is very similar - only this guy has a review history and he's consistent with it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AFITFTAG0FKG4/ref=cm_cr_auth/104-145 6630-9678346?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview It's part of the game. This is what I have to say (and have said). We are so conditioned to the whole situation that sometimes, ludicrously sexist assumptions and comments go by and even people who are relatively alert and aware don't recognize them. Gender differences? Of course. Human differences? Always. One of the most common struggles female writers have is balancing their family and children with writing. By the same token I know two male writers who I worked closely with in the past who chose to stop writing (actually - three) because of their families. Their spouses and children wanted more of their time and they made the choice to downplay their writing, and spend more time with their families. These guys definitely couldn't talk about that the way women can, because it would be thought very "unmale" - possibly "girlyman" and so-on. But this is, truthfully, a human concern and a choice. Sometimes our best writers are solitary, and sometimes they're mean, anti-social, or, to use the technical term, "assholes." But they do great work. There are also many more who are good people -- kind, caring, giving. I don't think being a creep is a job requirement; it's a possibility in fiction writing -- whereas most people like that in the "real" world are stuck in back offices or unemployed. I would love to see everyone move more toward discussion and recognition of common human issues, and common human ground. But hell, I'm so sorry for saying this because I'm not NANCY and I'm not CONNIE. I am Amy Sterling Casil.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 08:52 am:    I wasn't addressing you, Amy. I was addressing Murphy, with whom I have a longstanding beef. I have no interest in scaring you or anyone else off. As your being scarier than me--I don't doubt it. Murphy, however, is scarier than both of us put together. His blog, Murphy's Pondering Tree, which I was pointed to last night, is a virtual portrait of a psycho in the making. Students of psychopathology are encouraged to study it. Wow. I never completed my psychology degree. No, I thought you might not want me to feed the troll, Lucius, that's all. He's definitely veering toward the axe-grinding Amazon dive-bomb reviewer category.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 10:07 am:    Amy, I simply wanted to know what Kress or others have said on the topic. I respect Kress as a fan, a writer and for the fact that I find her books on writing (which never seem to mention the gender issue) very useful. And having met her once in person, she is the personification of what Shelia was talking about. Write, don't whine. I don't whine because Lucius calls me whatever he wants to call me. I aim to prove him wrong. Far as I'm concerned, perceived or otherwise with the market, you face the same problem. Write or bitch. I care not. Didn't say your opinion wasn't important overall. But, think what you want.   PM Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 10:12 am:    Speaking of scary, Lucius has just 'released' a new novel softspoken. It's published by NightShade books, our fine hosts here. And available direct in two editions: regular and limited. It's a work that both feminists and anti-feminists can ponder...   Elizabeth L Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 06:45 pm:    Elizabeth--- I hope I'm beating a falling horse when I say that it doesn't inspire more women to submit stories by making claims that some editors don't buy stories from women (or from any particular group). Very few editors publish stories that aren't submitted to them. Gordon - Are you satisfied with the status quo knowing that there is a perception out there that SF and SF editors are gender biased? To me, this misperception is as damaging as the thing in itself if it prevents women from submitting their work to the "Big 3" SF markets and deprives SF readers from potentially great work. It's really very simple: The perception that the "Big 3" markets are biased exists because, like you did once upon a time, women assume that a gender parity exists in submissions. When only a quarter to a third of stories published are by women, they conclude that something - gender bias – is at work. Given the history of women in SF and in science in general, that's a valid conclusion except it's based on a faulty starting premise: there is no gender parity in submissions. Now, I have two questions: 1) does it matter that works by women only make up 25-35% of story submissions? 2) does it matter that some women who write SF think there is a bias against their work in the "Big 3"? Maybe it doesn't matter -- maybe that's just the way it is going to be. Maybe fewer women like the "Big 3" and so don't read and don't submit. Maybe their work isn't suited to these particular markets or you as editors. Maybe it doesn't matter that there is a group of women out there who write SF but who don't submit to the "Big 3" because they perceive a gender bias at work there. You probably have more than enough material in your slush pile with those who already do submit. Those are questions you have to answer for yourself. If you do view this misperception as a problem and do really want to see more women submit, I'm afraid that not saying anything won't cut it. The solution is to encourage more women to submit. They won't as long as they perceive that there is a bias against their work. What will inspire women to submit more is the belief that women's work gets a fair shake. It will inspire women to submit more stories if they are shown that the markets they think might be biased are not in fact biased. People can tell them the markets and editors aren't biased, but without evidence, it's just hearsay. And after all, no one but the worst troglodyte would admit to being biased. Those women who conclude that the markets are biased certainly won't be inspired to see people calling them whiners and complainers. In fact, that's only going to confirm their suspicions, because that's such an old sexist epithet thrown at women who demand equality. And certainly those women won't be inspired after reading Dave's column. When I point out that F&SF and Asimov's don't appear to be gender biased, I am not necessarily claiming that everyone else is. Perhaps no markets are biased towards women writers. Without more evidence, I can't say for certain. I think it's safe to say that if F&SF and Asimov's aren't gender biased, then others might not be as well, but I am not willing at this point to say that all editors in SF are paragons of gender blindness. If editors buy what they "like", and "like" is such a subjective term, it is entirely possible for an editor to be biased towards one sex or the other and not buy their work because "liking" a work might be influenced by that gender bias. I think it's wrong to ignore or downplay this problem, as so many people seem to want to do as if it will just eventually go away when women submit more stories. They won't submit more stories as long as there is a perception that they won't get a fair shake. Hence, speaking up is the only solution. When more women submit, when submissions are at parity and more women are published, this perception will die its natural death.   Sheila Finch Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 09:31 pm:    Elizabeth, I think you're asking Gordon to prove he's stopped beating his wife. How is he -- or any editor -- supposed to prove a negative?   des lewis Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 12:43 am:    By using the Nemonymous method as explained above? des :-)   Elizabeth L Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 07:41 am:    No, Sheila, if you read any of my posts, you would see the following: 1) I said that there is a perception that there is a gender bias in the selection of stories at the Big 3, including F&SF. 2) I said this perception exits because women expect that there is a gender parity in submissions. Since there is no gender parity in publication, the perception exists that there is a gender bias in selection of stories. This is a flawed conclusion because there is no gender parity in submissions. Women submit less than a third of stories. 3) I acknowledge that F&SF has published the same or a higher proportion of women than submit. Thus, I conclude that there is no actual gender bias in the selection of stories at F&SF (and Asimov's) at the least. 4) I state that a misperception that there is a bias is damaging because it will likely prevent a number of otherwise qualified and talented women from submitting. 5) To counter this misperception and to encourage more women SF writers to submit, the magazines could say something explicit, like F&SF does about getting more science fiction -- you know, like maybe "We never receive enough stories from women writers." It's that simple. Finally, it's quite easy to prove that the magazine publishes the same proportion of stories by women as submit to the magazine: provide submission stats by gender and publication rates by gender. Both Gordon and Sheila have shown through the number of submissions and publications that they are publishing women in about the same proportion as submit to the magazine. Hence, their selection of stories does not exhibit a gender bias.   des lewis Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 09:33 am:    Finally, it's quite easy to prove that the magazine publishes the same proportion of stories by women as submit to the magazine: provide submission stats by gender and publication rates by gender Or, alternately, only consider, reject or contract stories before knowing who wrote them (easier?). You are right: it is a misperception. Misperceptions need to be dealt with in the same way as unwelcome correct perceptions.   Sheila Finch Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 10:21 am:    Elizabeth, that's what I *thought* you'd originally said. So I was puzzled by your next post, which seemed aimed at Gordon (in a thread devoted to Gordon's alleged sexism). Why not just ask him to -- now and again -- put an editorial in front of the mag and quote submission stats by gender? I think he doesn't write enough editorials as it is, and this might help. Might, because I have a suspicion some people prefer to moan about "bias" instead of working harder on their art.   Elizabeth L Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 10:37 am:    Sheila, there are always people who moan about not getting published and try to find any other reason that their work sucks to explain it. I wish I could blame something other than lack of talent, perseverence or skill for my lack of professional publication, but in truth, I can't. Still, I am sure there are some very talented women SF writers who do not submit or submit as often as they might otherwise because they perceive that there is a gender bias at the "Big 3". I've tried to show that this is not a malicious perception or an indication that these women are whiners, but are simply operating on an incorrect first premise about equity in submissions. The easiest thing to do is simply counter that misperception by pointing out it's plain wrong, show the stats and encourage women to submit. I know that smacks of being "political" and that it might appear to some as "coddling" women, but it really isn't. It would be coddling to actually buy stories from women merely to meet a quota or to make the magazine look more representative. It would not be coddling to be welcoming to writers who might not be aware that they are welcome. Sometimes, to be clear, you have to actually state things directly and not count on people "getting it". The editorial process is pretty much opaque to most of us mere mortals and so knowing that an editor is unbiased is a big plus.   Byron Bailey Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 10:46 am:    "Sheila, there are always people who moan about not getting published and try to find any other reason that their work sucks to explain it. I wish I could blame something other than lack of talent, perseverence or skill for my lack of professional publication, but in truth, I can't." Gordon Van Gelder doesn't have a gender bias. He has a Byron Bailey bias, I tell you. A Byron Bailey bias!   des lewis Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 10:54 am:    A Byron Bailey bias My suggested method would solve that, too! Or be perceived to solve it!   Sheila Finch Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 10:58 am:    Byron: LOL! (I think that about Stan Schmidt.)   Byron Bailey Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 11:02 am:    I wouldn't worry too much about the perceptions of gender bias in F&SF too much, for the James Gang is on the case. Founded by Alice Sheldon, the James Gang is a secret organization of women bent on righting the wrongs of gender discrimmination. In order to more effectively fight gender discrimmination, they have chosen to fight it from the inside, disguising themselves as men to do so. Some of these ladies have perfected their disguise to such a degree that not even their wives know their secret. Some of them have perfected their identity to such a degree that not even they remember who they are. Current members include James Morrow, James Gunn, James Van Pelt and perhaps a few others. The James Gang rides! *Nyah! Notice how I didn't have to use the word "pussy?"   Elizabeth L Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 11:35 am:    Thanks Byron, for the comic relief. *Some* people around here can get quite pedantic at times.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 11:36 am:    "Notice how I didn't have to use the word "pussy?" " Or "penis-heavy," either, since the James Gang is all men. ;-)   Byron Bailey Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 11:43 am:    "My suggested method would solve that, too! Or be perceived to solve it!" Nah, the bias goes deeper than mere name recognition into the very essence of who I am. I am an acquired taste and no one wants to acquire me. It's making me think that just possibly, there might be a reason. *To any James or anyone who may have been offended by my previous post, you have my apologies for I am an uncouth savage who has learned that in these civilized times that the only way to get along is to apologize profusely for everything. I'm sorry. Now am I supposed to take off my shoes before I enter the forum. Sorry about that, too?   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 11:59 am:    Finch wrote: Might, because I have a suspicion some people prefer to moan about "bias" instead of working harder on their art. Amen.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 12:01 pm:    Byron, how'd you do the smiley? Still, I am sure there are some very talented women SF writers who do not submit or submit as often as they might otherwise because they perceive that there is a gender bias at the "Big 3". I've tried to show that this is not a malicious perception or an indication that these women are whiners, but are simply operating on an incorrect first premise about equity in submissions. You know, that's their choice, ultimately. I understand where you're coming from, Elizabeth. Several people told me that the "slush bomb" was actually supposed to be pro writers submitting all on the same day, not "pre-published" writers. But people have even gone to the extent, these days, of suggesting that short fiction be eliminated from SFWA membership qualification - i.e., it should go to novels only, because one cannot hope to earn anything like a living from short fiction, no matter how "successful" one is. I would venture to say that *some* of the writers that don't submit to the "Big 3" are not doing so out of a fear of gender bias, but because, perhaps, they don't write that much short fiction, or because, as I saw a friend note today, they write short fiction only by invitation for a paying gig, and so-on. I really love the magazine. I love the fiction in it, and I'm proud to support it. If there's somebody out there with the same feelings, who's writing short fiction, but is fearful of submitting for whatever reason, then that makes me pretty sad.   Byron Bailey Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 12:33 pm:    "Byron, how'd you do the smiley?" The way I do it is : ) but get rid of the space between them. On my computer, it becomes a smiley face like this . You can also make a frowning face like this by reversing the direction of parenthres part so it's : ( without the space.   Byron Bailey Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 12:36 pm:    "I really love the magazine. I love the fiction in it, and I'm proud to support it. If there's somebody out there with the same feelings, who's writing short fiction, but is fearful of submitting for whatever reason, then that makes me pretty sad."   Dave Truesdale Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 12:38 pm:    Since when is anyone (even an editor) responsible for anyone else's misperceptions--and then be _further_ responsible for debunking them (time after time after time; if it's not this misperception then it's going to be _that_ misperception)? If the misperception is false (take the case at hand), as has been admitted here, then why don't _writers_ expend as much energy explaining to other writers who have said misperception, that it is totally false, rather than taking up their time and energy here debating the falsehood? Writers should spread the word that the misperception is false, in the same way that some spread their misperceptions in the first place and started this whole thing. Why put the onus on the editor, who has better things with which to occupy his time, when writers who know better can convince their writer friends who hold to this misperception? Seriously, the same pressure can be brought to bear on fellow writers that their misperceptions are false, in the same way those doing the misperceiving brought their grassroots evolved misperceptions to light in the first place. The editor shouldn't be coerced into doing it. It's almost a tacit admission of some sort of error, or guilt, in the first place. And seeing as how the misperception is false to begin with...   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 12:39 pm:    I'm sorry, but I've yet to figure out, in five years of effort, exactly what an SFWA membership is supposed to be good for.   des lewis Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 12:53 pm:    I say it for the last time (sigh from me, sigh of relief from others): nobody needs to go into such convolutions, if one simply rejects or contracts a story before knowing who wrote it. Seems so simple.   K. Tempest Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 01:13 pm:    After my rather long diatribe a few days ago I had a discussion with a writer friend about this thread and he convinced me that I also needed to take a step back, examine the issue, and maybe offer some more helpful dialogue. Hopefully I can do so without fanning the flames. Without reading most of the thread that came before I first posted or much of what came afterwards (so as not to taint my response with anger or snarkiness), I would like to lay out the issue/problem as I understand it. Gordon, I don't know if anyone has actually called you a "Sexist" or accused you of "Sexism". Someone may have, but what I've heard people say is that you have a Gender Bias, which is not exactly the same as sexism. For one thing, a gender bias may be unconscious and unintentional. Some of the kindest, most liberal-minded people in the world have biases because of how/where they were raised and how or society and culture teaches them to operate. I have biases, you have biases, we all have biases. It's what happens when people point out that you may have bias that counts. As I said before, I spend a lot of time online talking about volatile subjects like Race and Gender and Politics. One thing I began to notice is that the people who violently disagreed with me, argued against me, or downright spit on me (virtually) were not always card-carrying KKK members, but people who consider themselves progressive, inclusive, and friendly to people they would label as 'other'. Nisi Shawl and Cynthia Ward say in their book "Writing the Other" that White liberals’ greatest fear is discovering that they might be a little racist. I would extend that to sexism and any other -ist or -ism. Any time you point out some trace of an -ist or -ism in their speech or actions, they go into fear overdrive. They're so afraid they might be racist or sexist or whatever, or just afraid people will label them as such, that they stop listening and deny, deny, deny. Instead of actually confronting their speech or actions, they run away. They say, "But I can't be a racist, I have three black friends!" They say, "But I don't have a gender bias, I publish three women!" Obviously, this never solves the problem. It also misses the point. What I am hoping is to do an end-run around this reaction. There is no question that F&SF publishes female authors. There is no question that you are more aware now of how many women submit to you and how many you publish. You put up the stats more than once. That's more than many, many other editors have done or even thought about doing. This is an awesome thing. For one, it allows us to have a more nuanced conversation about the topic because we have hard facts. But it does not solve the underlying problem. I also don't think that you deliberately reject stories *simply because they were written by a woman*. If someone has accused you of this, I'm sorry. Some women may feel that way, I suppose. I have always felt that you reject many stories not because of the gender of the author but because the kinds of stories you like personally are more often written by men. There's a fine, fine difference there, but it exists. I submit that you do have a gender bias, Gordon, and that bias is reflected in not only the number of stories you publish by women vs. men, but also the kind of stories you publish. I don't think that's in question. What we have to start with is how to deal with the biases. Hannah put it excellently when she said that if an editor prefers one type of story over another "it may be worth considering what goes into such a preference, and possibly making an effort to stretch it some." Because there are two parties in this equation - the editor and the readers. Gordon, you mentioned never hearing feedback from non-writing readers on this issue. I've already given you my ideas on why that might be. Also, it would help to consider what kind of readers you're going for here. If you mainly want to sell a magazine to guys just like you or those who have similar tastes, then you don't need to change a thing. However, if you're looking to draw in men and women from a diverse range of races, classes, and education levels *as well*, then exploring your biases has GOT to be the first step. That doesn't mean you have to beat yourself up, nor does it mean you have to submit to the lashes of others. It just means loosening the vice grip you have on the idea that not being actively hostile to women is the same as not being gender biased. People who know you far better than I do tell me that you're not hostile to women. You don't shred women-written stories as they come in and laugh. But you still have Work To Do. And, just so I'm clear, I am not suggesting that anyone 'coddle' writers (whatever that crap means) or that you choose stories *just because* they were written by women or in any way lower the standards of your magazine. The fact that any time people suggest that a magazine could do more to attract and publish a greater number of women (or minorities) someone jumps up and says that doing so would mean lowering standards makes me want to scream. Do people understand that when they say that they're implying that "Women/Minorities can't write as well as White Men"? Is it any wonder accusations of sexism are tossed about like salad? This Work you have To Do is multi-fold. People in this thread and elsewhere suggested that putting something in the guidelines about F&SF being 'friendly to women' would help. We're beyond that at this point. The situation was pretty beyond that before, and this thread has put it so far beyond we'd need the TARDIS to go back. We need other solutions. What we need is for Gordon to prove it. When John Scalzi put in his hat for the SFWA presidency one of the ideas he had was to create an SF evangelist. Someone whose job it was to go into the wide world and talk about SF, promote SF, etc. I think F&SF may need such a person for this issue. From what I've been able to glean, this is not something you want to do, GVG. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't strike me as an incredibly social person. Not everyone is and that's fine. You also strike me as the kind of person who'd rather not spend time in venues like this and in other places on the Internet talking about this stuff. That's also fine. But you need someone to do outreach. Someone that people know you trust and who can plausibly speak for you. And if that person goes about the Internet saying "F&SF is looking to change. They want to attract more X readers and wants to publish more Y stories. Gordon is hoping to raise the percentage of female authors in his slush pile..." they have to be telling the truth. And there has to be a way folks can know they are telling the truth. All this depends on you actually wanting to do these things, of course. And I don't know if you do. But you seem to care, else you would not have started this topic. I just think that you didn't realize how much work it might take to change this perception of you as gender biased or sexist. It'll take more than a thread on a message board. If you just continue on as you have been and not make any changes, then you're just going to have to develop a thick skin about this stuff. So many problems are solved when people just stop being defensive and listen. That's SO hard, though. Which is why it rarely happens. I knew this was going to get long so I'll stop now. But I do want to point out some other posts and discussions that might help you. First, there's N K Jemison's excellent post about Race in SF Publishing: http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/no-more-lily-white-futures-an d-monochrome-myths/ Then there's a post about how magazines can go about creating a more diverse slush pile and, by extension, a more diverse ToC: http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/how-to-promote-diversity-in-f iction-markets/ Stephen Segal posted a comment on how (I assume) Wildside Press is addressing this particular issue: http://oldcharliebrown.livejournal.com/121260.html?thread=348844#t348844 Let me end by saying that, as far as this thread is concerned, I'm probably done replying. I'm not averse to continuing this discussion in private email or even in person sometime. However, I have lately felt more and more that Lao Tzu knew what he was on about when he said: "Express yourself completely, Then keep quiet." --T   Sheila Finch Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 01:18 pm:    Steven: "I'm sorry, but I've yet to figure out, in five years of effort, exactly what an SFWA membership is supposed to be good for." And here we go on another round of explaining and explaining and explaining. I'll mention the top three advantages: Griefcom (to do battle for you when you're being screwed over in the publishing world), the Emergency Medical Fund (when you're facing major medical disasters with no money and need a low interest loan), and the Legal Defence Fund (for similar pending disasters which you're going to have to fight but have no way of financing). By the way, I don't understand how you spent five years and never heard of those three?   John Joseph Adams Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 01:37 pm:    Des, if I believe that you were truly saying that for the last time, I'd be a happy man. Seriously, give it a rest already. There's nothing left of that dead horse.   des lewis Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 01:55 pm:    There's nothing left of that dead horse. Well, there's only been one argument against it - one person who claimed that she'd recognise the authors out of the world's millions of budding writers. Seriously, I never put forward the Nemonymous method as a solution to the problem of perceptions that people have expressed on these threads. Nemonymous was never meant for that nor will be the non-dead horse of the Nemonymous book (with 17 writers) being published next month, with each story paid £50. Nemonymous just is. See, I didn't say it again, but it is true ... but ony if you want a solution to all the convolutions expressed above. I don't think you need a solution at all, for a non-existent problem, mind you. Nemonymous is for 'Aesthetics' not for misperceptions. But it's there if you need it as a method. Be my guest.   John Joseph Adams Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 03:58 pm:    Tempest, A couple questions: (1) You say you feel Gordon has a gender bias. On what do you base that charge? Are there specific stories you can point to that demonstrate your point, or is more a matter of stories Gordon's not publishing? (2) Or what are the characteristics you see (or find lacking) in F&SF stories that you feel demonstrate a bias? (3) Who *is* publishing the kind of stories you feel are missing from F&SF. Can you point to some specific examples? (4) This online outreach you're talking about--where would you suggest we do that? Not just for women, but also for encouraging cultural diversity? I'm not trying to be defensive--I'm just trying to get to the heart of the issue.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 04:34 pm:    Shelia, I've been busy either writing, going to college, or working a day job. Some of it has been mentioned in very vague terms, but not quite with the concreteness that you place upon it. I'm not a con goer (and I don't think I ever will be, they always happen during the summer and I'd rather be outside) and I tend to focus on end goals as opposed to extraneous information. In this case, the end goal is to sell a short story. I've not spent a lot of time paying attention to anything else that doesn't pertain directly to that. Having said that, I prefer to fight my own battles. It seems like everytime I join a "group" some individual with ducttape comes for me. In the Event of a Worst Case Scenario, I've got the Dept of Veterans Affairs for the Medical (well, providing both parties don't keep slashing the funding, which both are guilty of) and likely will always have a day job of some sort (regardless of what any predictions of my future writing ability may tender one way or the other) to provide benefits anyway. I respectfully appreciate the explanation. But I think even if I get to the point where I qualify, I suspect I'm going to pass. Thanks anyway. It has been mentioned in this thread that Science Fiction needs someone to be an "evangelist" about it. God Almighty, I think the Absolute Last Thing Science Fiction needs is to amp up the already overdone missionary tendencies extant in the field. You can't swing a dead cat without smacking up against nine NYT Op-Eds disguised as stories on any given day. I hear from folks, and perhaps they don't count because they are 18 to 34 in community college creative writing classes, who say they don't read science fiction because they get fed up with the politics. They also get fed up with having everything broken down into little itty bitty infobits. Finally, none of it ever seems to speak to them or generate any resonance in them. The word they use, more often than not is probably the most damming word out there per writing. Boring. I, personally, think they're right. SF Writers (least the American ones) are not really connecting with the 18 to 34 bracket. Maybe Cory Doctorow gets some buzz out of them (I mentioned his name in more than one class and I got blank stares, so much for stardom). And when I say Charlie Stross (a man who I like personally and as a reader) you get even more blank stares. Someone running around acting like a Southern Baptist at a Tent Prayer Revival is not going to work. Especially not with the standard stew of topics most folks in the field are likely to trot out for these folks. That is before you even get to the gender thing. Or the race thing. My two cents. For what it is worth.   Matt Hughes Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 04:57 pm:    I have always felt that you reject many stories not because of the gender of the author but because the kinds of stories you like personally are more often written by men. There's a fine, fine difference there, but it exists. I've been wrestling with this. To reject publishable stories just because they are written by women (or any other definable category of persons) is to exercise an unfair bias. It is wrong. But if one sets out to publish the kind of stories that one likes, and that one's readers like, and if that unintentionally excludes some authors, is that bias against that category of persons? And is it wrong? It seems to me that the question is one of intent, whether conscious or unconscious. If we could peel back the layers of Gordon's psyche and determine that a prime reason he does not like certain kinds of stories is *because* they are predominantly written by one category of persons, then the allegation of bias must hold water. But if it is simply a matter of taste, arising from all the complicated intermix of factors that make Gordon who he is (none of which turns out to be a dislike of this or that category of persons), then I don't see how there is a charge to answer. To take a slightly facetious analogy, I don't care much for Greek food and rarely go to a Greek restaurant. But in my part of the world, many of the "Italian" (and especially pizza), restaurants are run by people of Greek ancestry. I have no problem buying pizza or pasta from Greeks. I just don't like feta and grape leaves. Am I therefore biased against Greeks? I think not. For there to be a fault, there has to be an intent, even allowing for that intent to be unconscious. If an apparent bias is unintentional, if it is just one of life's unavoidable accidents, then it is not blameworthy. I should, as the lawyers say, declare my interest: Gordon has bought stories from me, the kinds of stories he likes, I suppose; but when I have sent him stories he doesn't like, he hasn't bought them.   Elizabeth L Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 06:02 pm:    You know, that's their choice, ultimately. Of course it's their choice, but it's a choice based on a misperception and so, it has to be the wrong choice. I think it's bad for the market to have the rumor of bias attached to it -- and it had that rumor attached to it before this thread so it's out there. I think it might deprive the editors of more choice, the readers of good stories because some good writers won't submit. I think it harms the potential readers who might miss out on some great stories because they won't read it, thinking it is biased. There's enough downward pressure on the short fiction magazine market as it is. I happen to really like short fiction and don't want to see it waste away. I buy anthologies all the time and several print mags and read several ezines. I'd like them all to stick around.   Sheila Finch Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 06:11 pm:    Steven, I totally understand the busy situation of your life right now! To tell you the truth, if all you're producing right now (because of time restraints, etc) is short stories, you probably don't need SFWA. But if/when you're negotiating book contracts and subsidiary rights and foreign rights and on and on, SFWA will be there to help you figure out how to get the best deal and not get screwed in the process -- if you need it. Good luck. :-)   Elizabeth L Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 06:12 pm:    I have never felt a remotely sexist-vibe from reading F&SF or Asimov's or SciFiction. (still mourns loss of SciFiction deeply). There has always been a mix of stories with male and female characters, and a mix of settings and types of stories. I think really good writers of either sex are insightful enough to write well-rounded characters, whether they are male or female. I rarely -- never is more accurate -- even think of the gender of the writer when I'm reading these markets. There are markets out there that I feel do really lean towards a more masculine or feminine ethos, which won't be named. I often do get a gender-biased vibe in the type of story that is published. When I get that sense, I get turned off, and the plot has to be really really compelling or the science or fantasy elements really really compelling for me to read on in that case. But I have never felt that from F&SF or Asimov's or SciFiction.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 06:29 pm:    Shelia, I'm years away from novels. Probably five at least. I've got my hands full writing short stories. But thanks for the thoughts.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 09:45 pm:    Thanks, Elizabeth. I've avoided becoming embroiled in this discussion but am reading it.   Eric Marin Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 12:46 pm:    Hi, Gordon. I found this discussion thread because Ellen linked to my guidelines page here recently. I think you made a good decision in starting this thread (and in starting the gender bias subtopic thread). It's a tough path to take, though. It is, however, much better to address matters like these directly than to let them fester. I hope the results of these discussions are productive for you and for others.   K. Tempest Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 07:08 pm:    (1) You say you feel Gordon has a gender bias. On what do you base that charge? Are there specific stories you can point to that demonstrate your point, or is more a matter of stories Gordon's not publishing? (2) Or what are the characteristics you see (or find lacking) in F&SF stories that you feel demonstrate a bias? I think this answer addresses both questions. If not, let me know. It's a combination of things. And I should point out that I probably sounded a little more determinative than I meant to in my last post. I do not exist in Gordon's head, so I can't say for certain that he has a gender bias. I just have a lot of info in my head coming together that gives me this opinion. The info I have is multi-fold. My opinion is based on a couple of conversations I've had with Gordon about this issue. Also data someone compiled showing that the number of women published in F&SF per year has declined since he took over the magazine. I saw another bit of data that showed that stories written by women published in F&SF were more likely to have male protagonists. (though I did not confirm this information myself, so i am always open to the idea that it is wrong) Informally, there is a sort of joke amongst a certain crowd of writers that Gordon likes 'penis stories' and doesn't like 'vagina stories.' This bit is based on the kind of stories in the magazine and possibly the stories rejected. As I said, it's a joke and we all giggle, but then folks also think it's true/accurate. Whether this is fair or not, I can't say. But I stopped reading F&SF unless someone I knew was in the mag because I wasn't seeing much fiction that appealed to me. Maybe even for that reason. (3) Who *is* publishing the kind of stories you feel are missing from F&SF. Can you point to some specific examples? I don't know if I can accurately answer this question. I could point out magazines or anthos that publish fiction that I like -- Lady Churchill's, Strange Horizons, Lennox Avenue (when it existed), SciFiction (same deal), Fantasy, Farthing, Polyphony, 20 Epics -- but I don't know that I could say stories in these venues are 'missing from F&SF.' Some of them are clearly stories that fit really, really well in the market they're in. Many of them are certainly good enough to have been published in a major SF market (and were). But do they belong in the pages of F&SF? I don't know. I would love to see what F&SF would look like if there were more stories by women, or stories with female protagonists, heck, with stories by or starring some realistically drawn minorities. But I do not know if I can say this or that story published in this or that market belonged in F&SF instead. (4) This online outreach you're talking about--where would you suggest we do that? Not just for women, but also for encouraging cultural diversity? To answer this question properly, it would take some research. Offhand, I'd say an active presence on the Broad Universe list, Carl Brandon list, communities on LJ like wiscon, whileaway, weirdosofcolor, etc. would help. Also, I wouldn't limit it to online. There's a lot to be said about doing interviews in magazines, sending someone to the smaller cons where non-traditional folks are likely to gather, etc. But, like I said, this is just the stuff off the top of my head. It would take work and research to really reach out. Maybe not all that much, especially if you get help from people who are connected. We are a community, after all, and I always say folks should utilize the awesome power of the community monster.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 05:43 am:    Thanks for your post, Tempest. Can you define more specifically what you mean by "vagina stories"? I started another thread looking for just this sort of feedback, but I see the thread has drifted into other waters.   Karen Meisner Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 09:16 am:    I'm not going to wade into the larger debates here, but just wanted to point out to the people who keep mentioning Jed Hartman that in fact, Strange Horizons has three fiction editors. Susan Groppi, Jed Hartman and I all choose the stories together. Jed is our senior editor, but that mostly means he takes on a lot of extra administrative tasks; the three of us split the selecting and editing of stories evenly between us. The magazine represents the cross-section of our tastes in fiction. It's an unusual setup, and Jed tends to post more about magazine stuff in his journal than Susan or I do, so I can see how you'd think of him as the main face of Strange Horizons. But if anyone wants to complain about the stories Strange Horizons is publishing, you should probably direct the complaints at all three of us equally. Thanks! Carry on.   K. Tempest Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 07:41 pm:    I will try my best to explain what I and (some) others mean when we talk about 'vagina stories'. Though I should preface my statements with a few notes: I don't think that in any serious discussion of literature one should start to qualify stories as 'penis stories' or 'vagina stories'. I did mean it when I said we use those terms jokingly, all while snickering behind our hands at the silly 8-year-old-ness of it all. Though when I/we use those terms, most of us understand exactly what it means. It's really crude shorthand for a more nuanced way of looking at literature. So. I asked people to help me define 'vagina stories' in a way that would be helpful to this discussion. Some people have just as hard a time articulating it as I did, even while understanding what I meant with the phrase. For the past few years I've been repeating what I remember you telling me at Westercon -- that you tend to prefer stories that are NOT, at their core, emotional stories. I can't remember what you said about stories you do prefer, but I came away with words like 'plot-driven' and action in my head, so it may have related to that, or maybe not. I do remember thinking that stories in which emotional concerns are at the core are what I would call 'girl stories', though it's more nuanced, of course. You can read the many (very interesting) comments on my LJ - http://ktempest.livejournal.com/187256.html - but some responses stuck out for me: --What I glean from [the term] is that feelings/emotions are given a higher priority than action. As some of my male friends say, "Why does it have to be all about feelings? Get your emotions out of my action." -- Boy stories (for me, this is--I make no claims to theoretical universality) tend towards the universal. They are weighted more towards ideas than emotions, and their plots are often more logically worked out than the emotions of the characters to whom the plots are happening. They can be excellent, they can be sucky, they can be written by either men or women. Kim Stanley Robinson and John Crowley write boy stories. So do Ursula K. Leguin and Elizabeth Hand. Girl stories tend towards the particular. They privilege relationships and emotional logic over external plot points and narrative drive. They, too, can be excellent or sucky, written by men or women. Patrica McKillip writes beautiful girl stories. So does Greg Maguire. SF/Fantasy as a whole skews towards boy stories. -- I'd strongly recommend you take a look at Joanna Russ' brilliant article "What Can a Heroine Do? or Why Women Can't Write" reprinted in To Write Like a Woman: Essays in Feminism and Science Fiction. I don't have time to do an elaborate summary, but here are the basics: Russ says that there are grand story structures, which she calls "myths," that are available to us...and these tend to be gendered, meaning they have protagonist = male built in already. ... The kind of story in which women protagonists do figure comfortably is the Love Story. Otherwise, the other grand myths available don't "fit" without textual problematization, as I mentioned. So strategies that women use to write novels end up being, I think, the "vagina stories" you're talking about: 1) novels using the narrative strategy of lyricism, which exist without "chronlogy or causation", in which "things don't happen" according to the male-centric perspective that sees only male-centric myths as valid. 2) stories about life. 'But how to write a novel about a person to whom nothing but a love story is supposed to happen?' asks Russ. What ends up happening is that the kinds of stories available to women to tell are judged against the male-centric norm, "penis stories." And women's stories are deemed "not worthwhile" or worse, "illegitimate," or "small," or whatever. No, neither I nor Russ is making an essentialist claim that "all women write one way and all men write another way." She's making the claim that gender structures the stories we tell and what kinds of stories culture deems "worthwhile" and "valuable." Stories informed, broadly, by male experiences are the ones that tend to get published more than ones informed by female experiences. (None of these are quoted in their entirety, so if you have any specific responses you should probably go address them at the source. I don't want anyone misconstruing things.) ****** There's more over there, but these bits get to the heart of what is probably going on in the heads of people who talk about 'vagina stories'. (They certainly articulate my general feelings better than I can.) And I cannot stress enough that I am in no way advocating these terms as ones that we should all start using in a serious way.   Rachel Swirsky Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 12:04 am:    "I'm amazed to read here that there's another Slush Bomb effort in the works. Did anyone ask me how the first one looked from my perspective? Or JJA? When Charlie first mentioned the concept, I was all in favor of getting more submissions from women, but in practice I think it was---as far as I could determine---a dud instead of a bomb." I can't speak for anyone else, but I was going off what you and John Joseph Adams said before it happened. I believe I specifically left a comment on JJA's blog saying that if you found the bomb upsetting, I wouldn't participate. I didn't get a reaction, so. Several of the other women I spoke to were quite concerned about whether or not it was offending you. You seemed to make several statements before it happened saying that you were okay with it. What changed?   Sean Melican Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 06:41 am:    I'd like to second K. Tempest, so that you know she's not the only one. Also, I'd prefer to see more stories that subvert genre or structural expectations. With the exception of M. Rickert, I can almost always guess the ending from the first page.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 06:42 am:    Tempest--- Thanks for your post. I'm glad we've finally got the discussion on content rather than on the gender of the author. (I'm also amused that I remembered our conversation as being in New York when it was in Seattle. But even as I was saying KGB, I was remembering that I saw you in both places in short succession.) By the descriptions you've offered, I would definitely agree that my tastes lean towards "penis stories." (I'm going to throw out your terms and just go with "boy stories" and "girl stories", because that captures the immature silliness better. People mature from being boys or girls, but most people don't get rid of their penises or their vaginas when they mature.) While my tastes lean towards boy stories, so do the conventions of the science fiction genre. As one of your quotes says, girl stories privilege emotional logic over plot or idea logic. But science fiction is often called "the literature of ideas." By literalizing the impossible, it does things no other form of literature can do. So if a writer is going to take one of the genre's greatest strengths---its ideas---and then subvert that power, the results aren't likely to be as good as something that plays to the genre's strengths. They might be, but they aren't likely to be. As GSH suggested above, if someone were to submit stories to romance genre publications that suggest at their core that love doesn't matter as much as material goods, those stories wouldn't be likely to fare well, would they? Or to give you another example, whose stories are closer to the core of science fiction---Virginia Woolf's girl stories or Doc Smith's boy stories? Both sorts of stories have their virtues, both have their enthusiasts and their detractors, but Doc Smith's stories did more to define the science fiction genre than Mrs. Dalloway or To the Lighthouse did. (And this comment is not meant as a reflection of my taste. I've never even read much fiction by Doc Smith, and the little I tried didn't work for me.) A logical question now is, "Well, why can't you have both?" You can. Tanith Lee comes to my mind immediately as a writer who has blended boy stories and girl stories well. But it's a challenge. A few years ago, TTA (I think it was TTA) published a great interview with M. John Harrison in which he moved away from science fiction before returning with Light---to paraphrase him: "If you steal a milk truck and try to drive it fast, it's a stunt once. But if you try it again, nobody's going to listen when you complain that the truck doesn't handle like a Ferrari." So to get back to the original point, if you want to accuse me of publishing more boy stories than girl stories, I plead guilty, no contest. And if you prefer reading girl stories---as you've said that you do---I take no offense at your saying you enjoy reading other publications more than you like F&SF. All clear. I just ask that you don't encourage people to make the jump from "Van Gelder favors 'boy stories' " to "Van Gelder never publishes 'girl stories' " or then on to "Van Gelder never publishes stories by women."   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 07:14 am:    Rachel--- Regarding the Slush Bomb, my reactions: BEFORE: More submissions from women? Great. Thanks. DURING: {I'm not actually sure, since I tried my best to ignore it all, but there was one day John looked at three submissions in my pile and said, "I guess the Slush Bomb has landed." And despite my best efforts, I found myself reacting with hostility to one of the three submissions, saying something to the effect of, 'You're sending me a slapdash, sloppy, and clumsy story and then accusing me of sexism for turning it down?!'} AFTER: I don't know when or if it ended, but basically I forgot about it. AFTER READING THE MESSAGE BOARD COMMENTS ABOUT DAVE TRUESDALE'S COLUMN: Holy sh*t! I can't believe people actually took that Slush Bomb thing as proof of anything! But not only is that the implication, but I'm also realizing that I haven't seen stories from some writers since last August. Jeez! That's your short version, Rachel. It sounds also like you took my silence as assent, when in fact I don't recall anyone ever actually asking me. Charlie Finlay and I swapped emails when the Truesdale thread first erupted and we made plans to talk at World Fantasy Con, but that was before I learned there's another Slush Bomb planned. Since your post suggests that you would indeed like some feedback, here goes: * If you want to encourage more women to submit fiction---great. More power to you, let me know what I can do. * If you want to stage a protest against what a magazine is publishing, discuss what's actually printed in the magazine. * If you're a writer who actually wants to be published, why would you submit work as part of a mob, when you know your chances of having your work receive extra attention are diminished?   K. Tempest Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:05 am:    Gordon, While the crux of the argument does have a lot to do with story content, I don't think we should get away from story authorship, either. Again, I don't think anyone is saying that F&SF never publishes stories by women. I *know* I've never said that. What everyone can say is that you publish fewer stories by women than by men by a significant amount. And that you publish fewer stories by women than the previous editor who was a woman. The fact that you prefer boy stories and it seems like a lot of women in this field are writing girl stories goes a long way toward explaining this trend. It does not address it, though. Though there are a lot of slots and markets and venues for boy stories, I don't think there's as wide a readership FOR boy stories. I could be wrong, but it's the trend I'm picking up on and I'm not alone. Boy stories may have been all fine and good 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, but this is not the past. It's now. And the disparity of kinds of stories is just as disturbing as the disparity in genders of authors. There is no reason in the year 2007 that the Hugo ballot should have been as heavily weighted toward the male as it was. No good reason, at any rate. But there are plenty of not-so good reasons - the lack of female authors represented in the markets that publish the SF/F that non-niche readers read. Fiction that then gets picked up by year's best anthos, which can't help but be skewed toward male authors because there are many more of them getting published. Combine this with a slew of male editors who don't really see anything wrong with this and editors of any gender who either don't care/don't see or feel like they have to cater to the people who only dig boy stories. I think that it's important to change the paradigm, here. I think it's really important to recognize that (a) readers/lovers of boy stories are NOT the most important consumers (which the current view/culture perpetuates) and (b) by widening the kinds of stories major markets publish, they will also widen their audience. And though I feel that a purely market-driven/money reason is not the best reason, it is something to take into account. If you want more readers then you have to be willing to change what kinds of stories you publish. That does not mean lowering standards or having a strict quota of female written stories or even of 'girl' stories, but it does mean taking a more careful examination of your own biases and actively counteracting the bad stuff that comes along with them. You say While my tastes lean towards boy stories, so do the conventions of the science fiction genre. As one of your quotes says, girl stories privilege emotional logic over plot or idea logic. But science fiction is often called "the literature of ideas." Yeah, it is the literature of ideas, but that doesn't mean it's the literature of ONLY ideas. Also, when the OP said that girl stories privilege emotion over idea, she did not mean that girl stories privilege emotion to the exclusion/detriment of ideas. In girl stories, ideas are not any less grand and awesome, they just aren't the only thing going for the story. I find stories where ideas are the only thing going for them to be boring and stilted. Yeah, that idea is awesome, but if the character isn't compelling, that idea does not matter. I want idea AND character AND emotion AND good writing. I don't think I'm alone. It sounds to me like you really, really care about idea and if character and emotion come along for the ride, it's icing. I think that's a problem. And if this is what it means to have or like mostly boy stories, then yeah, it's not a surprise that the readership is dwindling and fights break out. If I seriously felt that Science Fiction Genre Conventions are biased against that totality of story (idea + character + emotion + etc.) then I would not write Science Fiction. I just wouldn't do it. Because that would seem short-sighted and stupid to me. Maybe this is why so many people DON'T write or read SF. Maybe this is why we have writers and creative folks in other media outlets (television, movies) running the hell away from the label Science Fiction. How many times do we have to hear folks say, "My story/novel/show/film isn't SF because it's really focused on the characters" before we get that the problem isn't with THEIR perception of SF, but right here in this very conversation? I guess this is what it comes down to - do you want to change the face of SF (and F)? Do you want to widen and grow your readership beyond that which you have right now? If the answer is yes, then you're going to have to Change Your Mind. You're going to have to get over this notion that Science Fiction is more boy stories and is less girl stories (though that may not be what you meant, it's how I read you. It might be how others read you.) If you do not want to change, that's your choice. It's not my magazine and not my money. But then you're going to have to accept the slings and arrows of the Gender Bias and even Sexism charges. Why? Because you've proven that you do hear the arguments and you do now understand the finer points of what people have to say. Yet you don't have any desire to make F&SF any different than it is. What that signals to other people is that you don't care that you're perpetuating the atmosphere of SF as a boy's club where boys play with boy toys and hang signs on the door that say "no girls allowed" but make exceptions for that short-haired girl who isn't grossed out by frogs. The only reason I bother harping on you about it is that you're willing to listen, which is always nice, and that your publishing style is actually less heavy boy story than, say, Gardner's (according to... someone). Also, I sincerely feel that if there are going to be any major changes in this idea of Science Fiction as No Girl's Allowed then it needs to start from the top. It needs to start with editors like you. Any cursory glance at award ballots and year's best ToCs shows that the Big Three are heavily represented as publishers. You have influence. But, by the same token, you have the most to lose when the SF paradigm does shift. Either by the work of up-and-coming markets and writers and readers or by the fact that a huge chunk of your readership will die or shuffle off to nursing homes where they'll only be allowed to read 30 year old issues of Life. I'll say it again - if you want to capture a wider readership, something has to change. How and in what way isn't up to me.   Sean Melican Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:51 am:    You might want to read Nick Mamatas' recent post on the topic, as he says it well: http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/ Essentially, the argument boils down to: editors of the big magazines buy stories that are derivative and not very well written. The last issue of F&SF that I read through was January's, largely because of other commitments. Let me break it down: "Kiosk": Very long story to tell me that technology changes economics. "The Darkness Between": Heavy, poorly written infodump on the back end (Merrison's last speech), all to say that what we thought were monsters are just the adult form of us as pupae. And they're bad. Guessed the ending two pages in. "The Strange Disappearance...": Too many stereotypes: helpless, mysrerious alien and badass hunters on a big compound. Nothing new. "The Dark Boy": Confused woman in foreign country (is that one or two sterotypes?) helped by mysterious, handsome boy (three) discovers the missing part of her life is a man (four). "How to Talk to Girls...": Girls are mysterious. So are aliens. "X-Country:" Too many stereotypes: man with unusual source of wealth (one) creates unusual circumstances (two) during which some people discover a mysterious connection between achieving mysterious goal and good fortune. (three) None of them challenges any archetype. In fact, they use them to the point of absurdity. Now look at the breakdown of type: "Kiosk": I don't remember it very well, other than that it was so full of infodumps on economics, my eyes glazed throughout. "The Darkness Between" contains all men, in manly hunting situation with male relationships at play. "The Strange Disappearance..." contains all men, some bad guys with guns who hunt for sport, some ready to rescue an effiminate (read: helpless and mysterious) creature. "The Dark Boy": Two awful stereotypes: one that a woman needs a man, and two, that she needs help to find one. "How to Talk to Girls..." All right, it was amusing. But it's still about how girls are mysterious to boys. I can't imagine how boring this must read to a woman. "X-Country": There were some women, but the voice was male, the mysterious stranger was male. In only one does race or ethnicity enter the picture ("The Dark Boy) and in that, its a sloppy, lazy shortcut for saying he's got mystical powers.   Sean Melican Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:56 am:    You might want to read Nick Mamatas' recent post on the topic, as he says it well: http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/ Essentially, the argument boils down to: editors of the big magazines buy stories that are derivative and not very well written. The last issue of F&SF that I read through was January's, largely because of other commitments. Let me break it down: "Kiosk": Very long story to tell me that technology changes economics. "The Darkness Between": Heavy, poorly written infodump on the back end (Merrison's last speech), all to say that what we thought were monsters are just the adult form of us as pupae. And they're bad. Guessed the ending two pages in. "The Strange Disappearance...": Too many stereotypes: helpless, mysrerious alien and badass hunters on a big compound. Nothing new. "The Dark Boy": Confused woman in foreign country (is that one or two sterotypes?) helped by mysterious, handsome boy (three) discovers the missing part of her life is a man (four). "How to Talk to Girls...": Girls are mysterious. So are aliens. "X-Country:" Too many stereotypes: man with unusual source of wealth (one) creates unusual circumstances (two) during which some people discover a mysterious connection between achieving mysterious goal and good fortune. (three) None of them challenges any archetype. In fact, they use them to the point of absurdity. Now look at the breakdown of type: "Kiosk": I don't remember it very well, other than that it was so full of infodumps on economics, my eyes glazed throughout. "The Darkness Between" contains all men, in manly hunting situation with male relationships at play. "The Strange Disappearance..." contains all men, some bad guys with guns who hunt for sport, some ready to rescue an effiminate (read: helpless and mysterious) creature. "The Dark Boy": Two awful stereotypes: one that a woman needs a man, and two, that she needs help to find one. "How to Talk to Girls..." All right, it was amusing. But it's still about how girls are mysterious to boys. I can't imagine how boring this must read to a woman. "X-Country": There were some women, but the voice was male, the mysterious stranger was male. In only one does race or ethnicity enter the picture ("The Dark Boy) and in that, its a sloppy, lazy shortcut for saying he's got mystical powers.   K. Tempest Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 10:02 am:    I should also mention that I don't feel that F&SF or any magazine should publish 'girl' stories but not 'boy' stories. there's room for both, and both kinds have good examples and bad examples. It's more of a balance I'm looking for. By creating a balance, you signal to your readers and potential submitters that you're open to a wider view of what SF/F is or could be. You don't want to lean more heavily one way OR another. Balance - it's not just for gymnists anymore.   PM Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 10:13 am:    Sean, I agree and disagree with your assessment. Kiosk was interesting because it dealt with economics. The kiosk as I recall was black It also had that European flair. At any rate it didn't read to me as more of the same ole, same ole. Gaiman's story on the other hand is swimming in the stereotype of what a girl is and surprise, surprise it's the one that most [males] will relate to best. It's the twist that irritates me most. Why does every story insist on having a twist? Sure it's going to make a big comeback with Spider-man 3 but WHY, WHY?   Sean Melican Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 11:44 am:    The worst part is the continual decline of subscriptions. There is frequently much hand-wringing and wailing and gnashing of teeth about how video games, TV, movies have done in the genre. (Bullshit. Somewhere -- I think in LOCUS -- Dozier says readers of short fiction have always been a very small minority.) But instead of branching out, taking risks, publishing stories that violate traditional genre sensibilities, the wagons are circled. Novels and magazines can't compete against movies, TV, and video games for sheer dazzling special effects, so why bother?   Sheila Finch Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 02:14 pm:    K.Tempest: If, as you say, there isn't a big readership for "boy" stories, then who voted the all-male Hugo list? Certainly not Gordon or other editors, and not other writers either. The Hugos are a fan award.   Sheila Finch Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 02:18 pm:    I can't imagine how boring this must read to a woman." Sean, I actually enjoyed the story! What I got out of it was a nice riff on adolescent male behavior, something I'd always suspected but never had proof.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 03:42 pm:    I'm tellin' ya all, you're boring the piss out of the folks who'd buy your stuff. I hear it time and time and time again in Creative Writing classes. I like some of it but then for me it is very much an acquired taste picked up by virtue of, "Oh, if I want to get published in this magazine, I'd better figure out how these stories work." In the process, Asimov's under Gardner Dozois converted me (and wasn't that an awful shame that he retired, not the best thing that could have happened if you ask ME). But would I have bothered otherwise if I wasn't trying to break in as a writer? Well . . . truthfully . . . no.   Elizabeth L Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 03:57 pm:    Sheila, I enjoyed it as well, but to be honest, I felt the same way when I was growing up. To me, it was boys/men who were the aliens. I grew up with a largely-absent (but otherwise loving) father who was seriously invested in his career as a fighter pilot for the Air Force. It was my mother, grandmother, sister and a number of Aunts who formed the core of my family. Even all our pets were female! I had never had a boy as a friend until I had a "boyfriend" so they were strange animals to me -- oops, I better watch out or Dave will write a parody of this post and call me a radical feminist sexist and rail aginst the double stanard ... In fact, a story mirroring Gaiman's with girls as protagonists and "alien" males would make sense to me as a woman. The way our society raises boys and girls, deliberately separating them in so many ways and in so many social situations, creates this "otherness" to each gender such that at one point, for some of us at least, we each are "alien" to the other. However, that said, it is true that in our society, women occupy the position of "other" and the default position is "male". While that is irritating to me as a woman, I found Gaiman's story touching at times and humorous. Hell, I've been married for 15 years and I still look at the SU now and then and wonder . . .   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 07:05 pm:    Elizabeth L, you need to take up fencing.   GSH Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 07:21 pm:    For me at least, picking up on the boy story/girl story paradigm has been the big payoff for following the discussion thus far. I appreciate that the idea was communicated in so lucid a fashion. The model seems like it might be a genuinely useful tool, whether you're looking at a certain market or at a single story. Maybe we could think of a continuum, having boy stories at one end girl stories at the other? Some may like purely one and some may like purely the other, but stories having the widest appeal would either be in the middle, or balance separated opposing elements.   Elizabeth L Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 08:02 pm:    I think most of us boys and girls who like SF are enlightened enough to appreciate both kinds of stories or stories with a mix -- if they are written well. Women don't only write emotion-heavy stories lacking ideas and gizmos, populated with female protags, nor do men only write astounding-gizmo-idea stories lacking emotions, populated with male protags. If a market starts publishing only one kind of story, I would expect readership would fall even more than it already has due to other market forces. If only one end of the boy/girl continuum is being represented, those who like MOR or the other side will just not bother to read any more or submit. That's something to think about.   K. Tempest Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 08:29 pm:    Sheila- If, as you say, there isn't a big readership for "boy" stories, then who voted the all-male Hugo list? It takes ridiculously few nominations to get a story or novel listed on the Hugo ballot. Some things have less than 20 votes. I'd be surprised if the work with the most # of votes had more than 200 (or even 100). Also, the fans who can vote on the Hugos need to either be attending or supporting members of WorldCon. If WorldCon is not your kind of con, then you're far less likely to hand them a not insignificant amount of money just for the pleasure of voting on the Hugos. A lot of the issues surrounding that are discussed here: http://blogs.feministsf.net/?p=144 The voting public is a small slice of the SF community. And the demographics of that slice are quite obvious, given what they handed down as the 'best'. Compare to other award lists like, say, the Nebulas.   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 05:23 am:    Certainly not Gordon or other editors, and not other writers either. I know JJA votes. I wouldn't be surprised if Gordon did too. And the only folks (it needs to be said repeatedly) who vote are those who either attend Worldcon (WorldCon?) or pony up the $40 -- plus the cost of books and magazines. And many of those, to no one's surprise, are the more commercially succesful writers. And, it needs to be said repeatedly, there's nothing inherently wrong with the Hugos. It's the system, stupid. Well, and editorial biases, thuddingly-dull writing, lazy shorthand. Gordon says SF is a literature of ideas, but for all that, there are very few original ideas, if at all. Much of the excellent writing is in the execution, not the idea itself. So publishing/rewarding lousy writing just 'cause it's wrapped around a rehashed idea is stupid. I'll use an example that is nearly universally admired: Kelly Link's "Magic for Beginners." The ideas -- children discovering literal magic, struggling with issues of friendship, desire, etc. -- are as old as story itself. It's the writing that rescues it from moribund derivation.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 06:10 am:    The feedback here has been great---thanks. I'm especially pleased by the comments about Neil Gaiman's story. That's the kind of feedback (both pro and con) that helps me balance the magazine better. Elizabeth said in the other thread that I'm the ultimate arbiter of what goes in the magazine and that's true . . . but it's not. The readers are. If I publish stuff that the readers don't like, they make it known. If people want me to publish more girl stories and fewer boy stories, specific feedback is more valuable to me than anything else. (By the way, Sean, can you find any instances anywhere of me wringing my hands and moaning about declining sales? I doubt it, because I don't feel that way. In fact, I've been trying to make people think twice about the conventional wisdom that the magazines are all doomed. I don't believe it, and I've been studying the subject closely for a few years now.) Regarding the Hugos, I think you're all getting off track in talking about the awards. As far as I'm concerned, it's more important to publish stories our readers like than it is to win awards. But if you do want to analyze the Hugos, look here: http://cluebytwelve.net/Hugos2006/nominees.txt   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 07:14 am:    I guess the upshot for women SF writers is this: if you want to get published in the short SF professional markets (qualified as per SFWA) and win awards, write white male protagonists in idea stories and use initials or a male pseudonym. *ducks flying crockery*   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 07:24 am:    I have three "did not guess the ending" votes, but only Jordan actually posted a response - I made a unique "Guess the Ending" entry in my blog. http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2007/05/guess_the_endin.html HELP GUESS THE ENDING! PLEASE! I think I could offer some type of prize. Um. I have a copy of "From Hell" that's brand-new. If lots of people do it, I'll put people's names in a hat and draw out the lucky winner.   des lewis Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 08:03 am:    I'm the ultimate arbiter of what goes in the magazine and that's true . . . but it's not. The readers are. In many ways, I see how that's true. But as a budding editor myself, one wonders whether there are two further question: (1) while you are serving the current readership, guided by their comments etc., do you ever wonder if there is an even bigger readership out there that would be attracted by different styles of story but are simply not coming to your mag because reviews of it tell them it's not suitable for their taste? (2) or a large group of readers who don't know they like a certain style (don't know it even exists) bacause they have not even been exposed to it and that, consequently, experimentation should often be used to 'test the waters' of unknown readerships?   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 08:54 am:    Gordon, I can't. Nor was it directed at you. But in LOCUS', you can count on at least one or two to make the following statement, or similar (especially in the end of the year review): "Despite declining sales, the quality of short fiction is stronger than ever..." Declining sales are probably indicative of a move towards electronic publishing as much as anything else. Who wants to pay for stuff when you can get it for free? (As an aside, I prefer paper for the usual reasons, plus if I'm paying for it, I'm more likely to read, or at least try to read, most of it.) Nor do I believe the quality has improved or declined considerably. The same number (not percent) of good stories are written per year, but there's a marked increase in awful stories published. It's harder to find the good stories in the widening pool of shit. And it's not a lot of fun to wade through. You aren't asking me, but the problem largely is one of dilution and specialization. It's a general statement, but I suspect the reason you haven't seen certain writers since August (I have no idea if you're speaking of me, but let's pretend) but in the increasing quantity of magazines, I'm finding editors who are more interested in my stories, and send specific feedback. So rather than a few magazines getting the vast majority of slush because there's no where else to go, writers who despair in one market are finding others to submit to. So why should I (or anyone in my situation) send you stories? What you see, probably, are stories that mimic (well or not) what F&SF has published in the past. You're not hearing certain voices because they've found another niche. Maybe they weren't good enough for you the first second third or thirtieth time, but you aren't seeing the thiry-first because the third, fourth and thirtieth found another more sympathetic market. The solution? Take chances on different voices, different structures, different grammars. The readers will tell you, as you said. (Emphatically, I'm not saying buy my next story, though I won't object. I'm not holding myself or my stories up as an ideal or the new voice or face of speculative fiction. Some are better than an Alas it didn't work for me; many aren't.) I'd also argue that electronic submissions have probably cut down on snail mail submissions, partciularly if I get specific positive feedback electronically and generic rejection letters through the post. It saves a lot of money.   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 09:02 am:    One more thought. When you write the introductory notes for new writers, count how many times you say something like, "___'s stories will probably remind many readers of ___'s stories," particularly if the second blank is many years old. Did you buy the story because it reminded you of another story (or set of stories) you liked? Or did you buy it because it was fresh, exiciting, new, challenging?   Sheila Finch Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 10:01 am:    Elizabeth: "Ducks flying crockery" was a genuine Far Side moment! :-)   Sheila Finch Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 10:05 am:    Here's a suggestion for you, Gordon -- and then I'll duck some flying crockery too -- Have a new feature each issue, an "experimental" story, one you personally are not too in love with but which is tolerably written, and then ask the readers to come here (perhaps) to vote on whether they liked it or hated it. That way you might get a sense of this silent readership that's being referred to here who would like something other than what you're currently publishing.   PM Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 10:12 am:    Don't know how the readership at large would react but that's where a "theme" issue could identify what's going on. So if GVG decided to choose stories that were different from what he'd usually choose (quality must be maintained of course) perhaps he'd want to lump them together into an issue to try and judge reaction. I agree with GVG though that distribution is critical. In order to attain a greater audience F&SF has to meet that greater audience. I'm ok with online but some perhaps many are stubborn about their paper preference. And one has to acknowledge and meet those requirements. Putting Gaiman on the cover is almost always a smart business move. It was about the best story in his recent collection and is a good story for these sorts of conversations   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 10:49 am:    Elizabeth, when is the last time you saw such a story? And what is the title? Seems to me that there is a virtual barrage of "diversity" in the types of characters writers are selecting (not that I'm complaining, just as I don't appreciate interference in my choices, I'm not going to fiddle with other writers decisions). I sometimes think, in fact, that the last sort of character a writer should use these days is a straight male protaganist of European extraction.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 11:27 am:    Elizabeth, when is the last time you saw such a story? And what is the title? Murph, do you *really* want me to devise a list of white male protags in idea stories? I sometimes think, in fact, that the last sort of character a writer should use these days is a straight male protaganist of European extraction. Yes, they are such a down-trodden population, near extinction in the pages of SF magazines . . .   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 11:36 am:    First, this is from Kate, and it was written in 2005. It is from the Online Writing Workshop: http://sff.onlinewritingworkshop.com/tips/wilhelm.shtml It has some commentary about what to expect/not expect from editors, stories to avoid, and it's titled, "Writing Real Stories." And - regarding a special issue - this is the TOC from the June, 1996 "New Writers" issue of F & SF: New Writer Issue; 7 stories by new authors Michael A. Martin, Amy Sterling Casil, Michael Libling, Arinn Dembo, Matthew Wells, Jacqueline Hooper, & Gordon Gross(collab. ps. for husband/wife Eve Gordon & Harold Gross) http://www.kentbash.com/bibliography.html (it's the Nazi Clown). The "happy family" is mine, from a later date. That issue was put together by Kris Rusch, not Gordon. I'm not suggesting the magazine do another such issue, or that anyone would be interested. I'm just saying that it happened. And while I know that I had to go through the shoulder-held nuclear mortar process to sell that story - I don't know about the others. I rather suspect they had an easier time of it. And I do know I just shared a TOC with Michael Libling.   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 12:14 pm:    Elizabeth, Can I ask you a favor? Please stop responding to Murphy. This thread was finally getting somewhere, and I'd rather it not be derailed. I think we can agree he's not exactly F&SF's audience. He's not even a subscriber. Also, the idea of isolating a story for an 'experiment' is absurd. It would create unnecessarily false expectations and divisions: Well (thinks the reader) here's the story Gordon didn't really like. I usually agree with him so I'll pass. Does a yes vote (thinks the reader) mean I'm voting for the experiment to continue, or for the story in particular? I want the experiment to continue, but the story was weak. My yes or no vote won't reflect any subtleties. These boards, emails, letters, etc. work well enought to let him know what we think without having to do a thumbs up or down.   K. Tempest Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 12:42 pm:    Seems to me that there is a virtual barrage of "diversity" in the types of characters writers are selecting Not to feed the troll, but... A few years ago I heard about a study done to observe how people percieve individuals classed as 'other'. They would show test subjects a room full of people and ask them to estimate the % of women. The study showed that most of the time male participants would see a room that had less than 25% women and estimate it had about half. they would look at a room that had 50% women and way overestimate how many there were in the group. While I have not actually seen this study, I have no doubts as to its existence because I see that kind of thing happen in my life all the time. If you were to actually sit down and tally up the numbers, you'd see that there are still a majority of white (particularly male) protagonists in SF fiction (and probably most fiction that isn't romance). Go look on the covers of the books on the shelves in B&N or general bookstore closest to you. If it shows a human on the cover, that human is probably white. Does that mean they're all white? No. Does that mean they're all male? No. But it's a majority. Yet this refrain of "There's all sorts of black people around!" and "It just doesn't pay to be/write about a white man anymore!" does not die. It does not die! Of course, attitudes like this are due in great part to ignorance and weak-mindedness, but they also manifest in otherwise smart or rational people, too. It's the perception. Some folks see a scant few women or black people in the room and they say "Yeah, that's about right. That's enough." As that number creeps up toward something approaching equality, they say, "Whoa, now! Where did all these people come from? We're overrun!" This is why statistics are our friends. Is there actually a 'barrage'? Or is it just someone's perception?   Sheila Finch Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 12:57 pm:    Sean, I introduced the idea of the "experimental" story, not Elizabeth. (I know, we females all look alike.) And I give the reader more independence than you do, apparently. If Gordon says , "Here's one I think is good, but a bit different than the stories on our regular menu. What do you think?" then I don't see any persuasion to say, "Gee -- if Gordon likes it...."   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 01:45 pm:    Sean, I introduced the idea of the "experimental" story, not Elizabeth. (I know, we females all look alike.) You know, half the time I sit around and wonder if I'm crazy or not. Fortunately, my sort of mental illness does seem to have a benefit to both myself and others, since there's nothing tells me I have to write any certain way or pick any certain "topic" so I pick my topics and there it goes. I did sort of see this moving along these lines, and oddly, I even typed "ling" rather than lines initially - it's probably my most common typo. Linguistic-lingster-lingo-lines-hmn. This game is most certainly a labor of love, and must be within ourselves, Sheila, because it is not about money - or about people even bothering to f-ing read your work as they substitute others that aren't even in the magazine! I cannot wait to sell out.   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 01:52 pm:    Sheila, I know who said what. I was addressing her feeding the troll. I s'pose I should've specifically addressed you. Nonetheless, why does he need to single out an unusual story? What benefit is gained? He can just put a different story out, if he so desires, and readers will respond (or not) without prodding. But with prodding, they'll respond differently. Labeling affects expectations. And I give the reader more independence than you do, apparently. Actuallly, less so. Do you think they won't figure out a story is outside Gordon's usual choice? And what if they don't? Adding a layer of expectation unfairly influences readers' experience. If you label a story as 'experimental' or 'now for something completely different' some readers will skip the story. "I don't like experimental" is very much the same stupid knee-jerk prejudicial (as in prejudged: as in based merely on the label) response as "I don't like science fiction" or "I don't like broccoli." There's no doubt that if F&SF published a story well beyond the usual, readers would figure it out. Do you think they're stupid? Do you need to hold their hand and tell them gently, as if they're dumb as Texan presidents, "Here's something different. Go ahead and try it. If you don't like it, you don't have to finish, but just try it."   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 02:05 pm:    (I know, we females all look alike.) I'm not sure how to respond to this silliness. Responding here, all I have are names and comments. I didn't mix up you and Elizabeth, but even if I had, it had nothing to do with your sex or gender. I could just as easily mix up your words with Murphy's. After all, all you apologists sound the same.   des lewis Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 02:21 pm:    Labeling affects expectations. That's a potentially big debate in all aspects of genres, writers, artwork...   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 02:34 pm:    Not really. If I pick up a book labeled science fiction, I expect certain conventions different from fanasy different from literary or mundane or whatever you want to call it. Delany has written about this elsewhere ad infinitum. Typically, he uses the line, "He turned on his left side." In literary (read: not speculative fiction) it can only mean rolling over, usually in bed. But in science fiction, it could mean that he literally turned on his cyborg half (which happens to be his left half.) When I go to a restaurant, I might order fish and chips. But I sure as hell wouldn't order fishsticks and French fries. It just sounds wrong, even though it's the same two objects. Even something as innocuous as 'tall' can affect expectations. For me, at five nine if my hair is spiked, nearly every adult male is tall. For my friend who's six three, there are many less tall people in the world.   des lewis Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 02:40 pm:    yes, I agree. I think you originally made the statement I quote. Very relevant to the debate and is a new debate in itself about how heavy labelling should be or how it should be done or whether it should be done at all. Without some labels, this gender debate itself would never have taken place. It's a vast subject. A sculpture with or without a label (artist, title etc) in a gallery...   Sheila Finch Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 03:34 pm:    I apologize, Sean, for the joking remark about all females looking alike. I didn't realize you were humor impaired. Not only would I expect the readers to "figure out" that Gordon was going out on a limb with a particular story, I was advocating that he tell them so -- and elicit their response. "Would you like to see the magazine print more of this type of story?" I see nothing wrong with that, and in fact I've seen it done elsewhere with interesting results.   Sheila Finch Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 03:36 pm:    Amy: Ain't that the truth! :-)   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 07:44 pm:    K. Tempest, a fellow Missourian once said words to the effect of, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." Or it may have been Ambrose Bierce. I think he'd have agreed with Twain. While I have not actually seen this study, I have no doubts as to its existence because I see that kind of thing happen in my life all the time. You haven't seen this study, but you are going to cite it? This study chalk full of those good stats you like? And I'm the ignorant one around here. You are going to talk about it because it verifies your world view even though you haven't seen it? Good grief.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 07:48 pm:    Elizabeth L, indulge me. Seriously. At least you've probably SEEN the evidence you'll cite and actually considered it. Makes me miss the days we argued about whether or not Truman should have used the bomb on Hiroshima. At least you went and got your own documentation. Seriously, I'd like to see a list. Say last six months. Hell, surely Jed Hartman's got a list of stats somewhere on gender/ethnic/orientation of protaganists in all of the magazines. (Or maybe he is busy painting Susan's toe nails or something, they are off just a bit over there at the SH establishment) We don't even need a big sample. Why not simply go with three months worth of the big three mags?   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 08:59 pm:    I have to tell you folks, I do run experiments with the magazine. All the time. With every story, you might say. And I watch the results closely---I listen to readers, I read reviews, I've got a core group of readers who give me a lot of feedback. Here are a few experiments that come to mind: * I started an online-only column and hired Dave Truesdale to write it. After running a handful of columns discussing stories and issues, I ran an opinion piece. Results: not good. People took the author's opinion for being the magazine's voice. Lesson learned. * I reprinted a story I liked by a big name that's purely boy's fiction about how women are incomprehensible mysteries. Feedback was almost uniformly excellent, up until someone in this thread (Sean?) bashed "How to Talk to Girls at Parties"---and even that bashing grudgingly acknowledged it's a good read. * A few years ago, a mainstream writer sent me a story I really liked from that wasn't actually science fiction or fantasy, but rather it was fiction about science. I published it and the feedback was generally very good, so when I got another story from Eugene Mirabelli that was just as good as the first, I didn't hesitate before buying "The Woman in Schrodinger's Wave Equation." And feedback for that story was roughly as good as for the first one we ran. * About four years ago, over Christmas I read a story that was very well-written and left me on the fence. It was pretty much what Tempest described as a girl's story---nuanced, more concerned about emotional development than about plot, etc. My early readers didn't like it, but I decided to publish it anyway. And the feedback wasn't good. Reviews were weak and subscriber responses amounted to saying, "WTF is this doing in F&SF?" I still think it's a good story and I'm tempted to name it because I'm still happy to have published it, but I never told the author about the bad feedback and I don't want to embarrass her in a public forum. (As far as I know, it's the author's only attempt at writing fantasy.) Anyway, the lesson I took away from that experiment is a repeat of a lesson I learned often at St. Martin's: trust my gut instinct. I've never gone wrong publishing a story like "Maze of Trees" (to name another one that might be called a girl's story) that knocked me out. # On another note, Des asked, "do you ever wonder if there is an even bigger readership out there that would be attracted by different styles of story but are simply not coming to your mag because reviews of it tell them it's not suitable for their taste?" The answer is, "Of course!" And we spend a lot of money trying to reach new readers. But a magazine is a little like a battleship---it doesn't change directions fast. For instance, if I took Tempest's impassioned post as an agenda and said I would immediately begin to publish girl's stories with greater frequency, do you think Tempest would send in a subscription tomorrow? In her shoes, I wouldn't. For one thing, the results of my newly-proclaimed agenda probably show up in the magazine for six months or more. For another thing, what if it turned out that the girl's stories I selected, edited, and published turned out not to be to her taste? Why should anyone subscribe to a magazine they don't enjoy reading? So, if I may repeat myself, I do decide what goes in the magazine---but the subscribers help me make those decisions. And if people here can give me feedback on which girls stories work or which boys stories don't, and vice-versa, that will only help me grow as an editor.   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 09:06 pm:    March F&SF "The Helper and His Hero": male narrator "Dance of Shadows': male narrator "The Devil Bats...": male, explictly heterosexual narrator "Magic With 13-Year Old Boys": erm, obvious: male, heterosexual narrator "Memoir of a Deer Woman": female, heterosexual narrator April F&SF "Memorae": male, heterosexual narrator "The Equally Strange...": male narrator "A Thing Forbidden": female narrator "Titanium Mike...": mix May F&SF "The Master Miller's Tale": male, heterosexual narrator "Kaleidoscope": female "Telefunken Remix": male "The Tamarisk Hunter": male narrator "The Great White Bed": male Of fourteen stories, four are NOT narrated by men. Of fourteen stories, five are narrated by explicitly heterosexual narrators. None by explicitly homosexual. Of fourteen stories, zero are narrated by anyone explictly non-white. I may have missed subtle references. Can you shut up now?   Sean Melican Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 09:21 pm:    For Christ's sake... Gordon, I'm not bashing "How to Talk to Girls..." Context, damn it. It's a very well-executed example of the girls-are-aliens archetype. Well-executed, yes. Funny, yes. But within the context, it was yet one more story that relies on stereotypes (or, if you want a more positive spin: archetypes) for its narrative thrust. How many stories do you publish that invert, challenge, or undermine genre tropes? And I do recall myself and others complaining that valuable space was used to reprint a story from a recent book easily accessbile to fans.   PM Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 09:30 pm:    Sean, don't know if you've read Fragile Things or not, (that's the latest Gaiman collection for those who may not know) but even though I agree with much if not all of your description of the story it's still the strongest candidate from the bunch. It had not been reprinted elsewhere at the time and my guess is that whole hordes of folk are drawn to Gaiman. I think printing the Gaiman was a smart move and perhaps Gaiman will take our thoughts to heart   GSH Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 11:47 pm:    Oh yeah. Mr. Gaiman's name on a cover is definitely a draw, and that's got to carry some weight if you're in the business of publishing a magazine. No aspiring writer should resent the logic, either--assuming you hope to eventually find yourself keeping good company in a prospering publication. I'm halfway through Fragile Things at present. (More than, actually. I'll confess I read The Monarch of the Glen first. Couldn't wait to find out what's currently up with Shadow.) The stories so far have been worth the cost of the book. Uh, except maybe for Forbidden Brides...? I haven't managed to sort that one out yet. On another topic, if Mr. Melican's list had continued on through June, we'd have had Marta Randall's Làzaro y Antonio in the count. I see Làzaro pretty clearly as a brown-skinned protagonist, which would lift the numbers out of zero territory. (An astonishing statistical leap!) The author's presentation is decidedly atypical, too. I believe that poignant little tale is probably my favorite of the month.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:06 am:    For some reason, I don't have a copy of the June issue yet, so I couldn't count it in. Nor have I read Fragile Things yet. However, and this is, erm, tangential to the issue, let's look at the reasons for publishing the story: (1) Neil Gaiman's name on the cover selles copies. Response: If that's true and I were a big enough fan to buy a magazine simply 'cause his name's on the cover, I'd probably have Fragile Things and be pissed that I already had the story. (2) Readers of F&SF haven't heard of Neil Gaiman. Maybe they'd buy Fragile Things. Response: If that's true, it's absurd. The day Neil Gaiman needs help selling copies of books... and I cannnot imagine that there are legions of F&SF readers who aren't fans of Gaiman. A few maybe. (3) Gordon liked it. Response: Fine. It's his magazine. Does he buy every story he reads and enjoys in magazines or anthologies other than in F&SF? Also, buy (www.aqqueductpress.com) and read Kelley Eskridge's Dangerous Space, particularly the Mars stories: "And Salome Danced," "Eye of the Storm," and "Dangerous Space." In each, the gender of Mars is carefully kept ambiguous. It's a lesson in how irrelevant gender can be, and a challenge to conventional thinking. Maybe Gordon could reprint one of those? I'm sure Ms. Eskridge needs more help selling copies of her collection than Mr. Gaiman.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:15 am:    Oops. That's www.aqueductpress.com. The other q is silent.   K. Tempest Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:22 am:    *considers replying to Murphy's special brand of craziness, decides that cesspool of ignorance is now too filthy to even dip a toe in* In other news, GSH, what led you to believe that the protag in Marta Randall's story was brown-skinned? I mean, was it something you inferred or something that was stated? Just curious, as I've never read the story. Gordon, you are correct that changing a magzine is slow work. None of this business is going to get taken care of by tomorrow week. So are you looking for girl stories published in other markets that we think work really well? (I only ask because you say you've published some girl stories in F&SF and might have been asking for feedback on them). I think I tend to prefer what we're calling girl stories, but I also like gender-neutral stories. Or transvestite stories. Or girl stories in boy drag. Those are other things to consider, too. I'll ask around and see if I can get some other people in on listing their favorites of these types of stories and why. We'll have it all worked out by WisCon ;)   des lewis Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:44 am:    Seems strange: the concept of an editor ordering up a crate of, say' transvestite stories or 'girls in boy drag' etc. A story should be a story, organic within its characters, plot and style. A story created just to demonstrate a certain narrative point of view for a niche market shows up as just that (fabricated), I would have thought. Or are we talking about a commodity where we order a bespoke product just for us. That's probably the internet (mixing and matching a choice of on-line texts for one's own personal mag), not a real mag.   John Joseph Adams Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:52 am:    Tempest -- I think most useful would be stories in F&SF that you liked, as a "girl story" reader--whether you considered them to be girl stories or gender neutral or even the rare boy story that you enjoyed. But stories from anywhere really would be welcome, if only to demonstrate exactly what we're talking about. Thus far, in our attempt to define what a girl story is, we've spoken abstractly with no specific examples (except to say that McKillip and Maguire write girl stories). On another note, in the Marta Randall story, the protags are explicitly Latino, so that's why GSH thought that, I'm sure. Also in that issue, the Sheila Finch story has a black male protagonist. Which is not to say that we're sufficiently culturally diverse, I'm just pointing it out.   PM Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 06:03 am:    "I'd probably have Fragile Things and be pissed that I already had the story." Well that's going to be true with anyone who can sell enough short fiction to fill a collection AND a collection. The Eskridge book is only available for preorder. Go Aqueduct press!   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:16 am:    No, Sean, I won't shut up. Besides, I really wanted Elizabeth to answer the question. Her answer would have been more interesting. Four, five and five that are up in the air. That is interesting. What are you other writers out there doing about it? Apparently nothing. A lot of preaching and bitching, mainly.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:18 am:    des wrote: A story should be a story, organic within its characters, plot and style. Well, that is kinda what I thought the whole game was about.   des lewis Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:42 am:    Within brainstorming exercises, Steven, the Obvious can potentially spark progress in the debate just as fruitfully as off-the wall ideas can do the same thing. I just got the impression that the debate was drifting towards the need for 'fabricated' stories to fulfil quotas. 'Fabricated' of course applies to all fiction, but there are fabrications of fabrications....   PM Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:49 am:    Hey Des that sounds like Kiosk   des lewis Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:03 am:    Yes I should have spelt it: fabrikation.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:53 am:    Seems to me that there is a virtual barrage of "diversity" in the types of characters writers are selecting... Elizabeth, when is the last time you saw such a story? And what is the title? You asked for facts. I gave you facts. Names, titles, breakdown by sex, sexuality, ethnicity. So much for this 'barrage.' What are you other writers out there doing about it? Writing, submitting, getting rejected. Oh, and accepted too. Putting together an anthology: I've gotten eleven professional writers plus a maybe. All I need is a publisher. (Or a winning lottery ticket.) I'll be sending out queries today, so, Murphy, what exactly are you doing besides fartin' in the wind? Thanks to JJA for help in constructing a proposal.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:12 am:    Fuck. Thanks to JJA and Nick Mamatas.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:23 am:    The Eskridge book is only available for preorder. Well, then preorder it.   GSH Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:54 am:    "...what led you to believe that the protag in Marta Randall's story was brown-skinned?" Yeah, as J.J. Adams said, Làzaro's ethnicity was pretty specific without being flat-out stated. There are the names, of course; a sprinkling of Spanish phrases and a few dashes of Spanish slang; a few telling affectations, such as how Antonio sometimes wears his coat, which is typical of a certain sort of urban Latino male. They're all light and deft brush strokes. I suppose how brown one sees Làzaro skin as being is up to the reader. Latino sets a range, from light-eyed blanquito to very dark indeed. The setting of the story--the Curve--is also unspecified, but I found myself placing the Curve and the space port somewhere in South America. This, in spite of the fact that we only know about the outside by way of a crack where the weather gets in. Interesting how Sheila Finch's black Xenolinguist didn't immediately pop into my head as a second example. Maybe it's because his ethnicity doesn't seem so important to defining the charcter and setting as with Làzaro.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:06 am:    des, isn't that precisely what some in the genre have been demanding? Seems Jed trots out an editorial or a blog entry on that very subject ever so often. Sean, I've got two stories out to market, one published this month (you probably haven't heard of the market ). Prepping the next story. Changing dayjobs, prepping for semester finals, killing time at dayjob by annoying you, Sean. Since you are on the staff at Ideomancer, I wonder what the protaganist diversity stats are over there? Maybe you can answer that question.   GSH Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:22 am:    (BTW, I've wondered about the name Làzaro and its English equivalent. Coming back is never without its problems, I suppose...)   des lewis Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:27 am:    isn't that precisely what some in the genre have been demanding? I'm a non-genre person who happens to publish genre fiction by accident rather than design. I try to steer clear of pronouncements and theses about fiction in case it influences my own writing or my editing (or my own wild theses!). I was attracted to this thread because of my interest in labelling and how labels can muddle as well as clarify (ie. labels of genre names, writers' names, artwork labelling a story etc). Some of the best art for me is directly and literally unlabelled, like the gherkin building in the City of London. There, any label is external to the work itself. Nobody cares about, say, the gender of its architect or, if they are, they are probably interested in a soap-opera/ celebrity sort of way.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:02 am:    Not to muddy the waters, Des, but that seems to me a really bad comparison--are there ANY female architects working today? I'm afraid I've never heard of one.   des lewis Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:11 am:    I think that may be a good point, Ellen, one I'm completely unaware of. Maybe I should have given the example of a piece of unannounced music one catches on the radio or the glimpse of a painting in a gallery before one peers up close to make out the signature. With a book, the writer's name is multi-cascaded on the spine, on the title page (or under the story title and in the contents list) and (quite often) at the top of every single alternate page throughout the book (if it's a novel)!   Sheila Finch Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:50 am:    des: The "gherkin building"? You mean that multi-coloured phallic symbol?   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:10 pm:    des, I see your point. Hell, I even agree with it. Shelia, aren't all skyscrapers and monuments of the Modernist period back phallic symbols of a sort?   Byron Bailey Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:16 pm:    Personally, the Gherkin building looks more like a stylized boob to me. *Still working on my boob story although the name has changed to "Hoosier Boobs."   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:53 pm:    2006: "Murder in Candyland": male narrator "Perfect Freak": one of each, male and female "Chasing the Sun": male "Be Thee Like Children": male "Leftovers": female "Triple Helix": mix, male and female "Unstringing the Bow": female "Hot": second person "Tin Cup Heart": male "The Garden, the Moon, the Wall": female "Letter from a Teddy Bear...": female "Vu": mix, male and female "Nine Lives": male "Disjointed": ambiguous You want anymore? Do your fucking homework before you make ignorant statements about the barrage of diversity.   GSH Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 01:34 pm:    Lemme see. We need to consider the gender of the author, the gender of the protagonist, and the gender of the story itself. That gives us 24 possible combinations, right? Then there are the issues of sexual orientation, and ethnicity... I think maybe I'm just gonna go back to whether I like the story or not.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 01:38 pm:    Um, so far, twelve people have NOT or did not "guess the ending" to "Perfect Stranger. It does have a "male narrator." But he's a "house husband" with questions about his virility, past choices, and future ones. As far as my prose is concerned, well, all I can say is that I know the difference between "fewer" and "less," although maybe Gordon doesn't care. I do.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 02:55 pm:    GSH et al., It isn't that I (at least me, perhaps more) have any desire to institute a quota or scorecard. I only want the editors to recognize (unintended) bias. If they want to capture more readers, and keep readers like me, I'd like them to consider varieties of voices (different genders, ethnicities, orientations, structures and so forth). Gordon asked readers to respond to (unjust) criticisms of sexism.   GSH Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 03:21 pm:    Sure, Sean. I got your point and agree with you. No sarcasm intended. Just an attempt at humor that misfired... *S*   Bruce Chrumka Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 03:34 pm:    Ellen asked: "are there ANY female architects working today?" Only one comes to mind...Maya Ling Lin, the designer of the Vietnam War Memorial. Born just one day after myself, coincidentally enough!   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 03:51 pm:    Sorry. Guard's been up.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 03:57 pm:    Ooh, bonus! Another half-dozen. No-guessy. http://www.sfreader.com/read_review.asp?book=266 That is only the second time I ever reviewed anything. And it will surely be the last. I don't regret what's done and stand by what I said - but this has been a very poor representation here for this publication. I believe this reflects much more poorly on "Ideomancer" than it could possibly reflect on F & SF.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 04:25 pm:    Huh? This has taken an ugly, personal turn. What did I say that was so offensive, huh? (Other to berate SFM for stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, unsupported, illogical, sociopathic comments.) You don't like what I say, fine. You don't like me, fine. But I'm not speaking for Ideomancer. Let's lay it out, shall we? (1) Truesdale is a moron. He cannot write satire or parody; he cannot develop or support an argument. (2) The statistics are there. F&SF overwhelmingly publishes stories about male or white or straight characters. (3) Following from (2), there are solid reasons women, people of color, gays and lesbians feel the stories don't speak to them. Do you subscribe to Hustler, Ebony or Out? (4) Is Gordon racist, sexist, or homophobic? Emphatically, no. But for many reasons, he buys stories in patterns that make it appear so. (5) It's up to Gordon to act, or not, on the information he's been provided. He asked; we answered. (6) If you want to respond to arguments in a reasonable fahsion, please do. If you want to get personal, to insult me, and through me Ideomancer then you can go fuck yourself.   PM Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 04:45 pm:    "If you want to get personal, to insult me, and through me Ideomancer then you can go fuck yourself." Folk can disagree without becoming out and out adversarial.   K. Tempest Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 04:45 pm:    Speaking about stories in F&SF would be hard for me, JJA, since I haven't read through an entire issue in a long time. I'll pick it up, read the first one, and maybe even the second if that first didn't annoy me too badly. But I generally end up annoyed and don't finish. The last story I remember loving was Bronte's Egg. I don't think that qualifies as a girl story per se, but definitely qualifies as a story that gives us everything - cool idea, good plot, engaging characters, emotional resonance, the works. I want a TV frog of my very own. As I said, I'll see if I can get some other people's opinions on stories they've read in F&SF. But if you want me to read through, say, the last 2 - 3 years worth of issues and give you an analysis, I must warn you that I charge $15/hr for market research ;)   Ellen Datlow Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 04:56 pm:    Thanks, Bruce. Of course. But as far as I can tell, she's only designed monuments. No other types of buildings and she's not a licensed architect (I just checked her wiki entry). >>>Ellen asked: "are there ANY female architects working today?" Only one comes to mind...Maya Ling Lin, the designer of the Vietnam War Memorial. Born just one day after myself, coincidentally enough!   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:07 pm:    GSH, that was sort of the point I was heading for with my question. There was a bit of method to my madness, whether some liked it or not. And don't you think it is really important if you are a diehard advocate of "diversity" to be concerned about more than just the gender/orientation/ethnicity of the author? I mean, I'm not a big diversity nazi and I try to throw in as much varation as I think the story allows. Some allow for more than others. I don't understand why Sean is so upset about the question. Gordon hasn't blown up at some of the really over the line crap that has been said about him in this thread (I, personally, think if I had been editor, my response would have been to say, "I pick what I like. You no like, blow it out your ass and deal with it.) Okay Sean, so we have your numbers. Now again, if we're all about "diversity" in science fiction, I gotta ask, what are you doing as an editor (I do know you are not the ONLY editor at Ideomancer) to fix that problem? Further, I didn't think it was an unreasonable question. You are just upset because I asked it. And why are you against a quota system? I figured the next step in the argument would be Title Nine for Sci-fi.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:09 pm:    Tempest wrote: I haven't read through an entire issue in a long time. Boy, I'm trying not to laugh about this one. I got hammered up thread for not being a subscriber myself but I HAVE read an issue not too long ago.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:16 pm:    Sean, in the past three or four days, you said this, Essentially, the argument boils down to: editors of the big magazines buy stories that are derivative and not very well written.. And Well, and editorial biases, thuddingly-dull writing, lazy shorthand. this. And this So publishing/rewarding lousy writing just 'cause it's wrapped around a rehashed idea is stupid. And this Also, I'd prefer to see more stories that subvert genre or structural expectations. With the exception of M. Rickert, I can almost always guess the ending from the first page.. On the 25th of April, you said this I would be hard-pressed to identify characteristics of exactly the type of story Mr. Van Gelder buys (other than, generally, quite good). So this has been an evolution, of sorts. But putting that aside, it has bothered me for many days that the agitation for certain types of stories, protagonists, examinations, etc. - is emblematic of the lifetime work of my (now friend) Sheila Finch. Through the examination of language, her considerable body of literate and sophisticated work has done what science fiction can do best: cast light upon human differences and diversity, and upon the deeper questions of what it means to "communicate." That's what the "Lingster" reference was about. This is the name for her series of stories that are about all of these things. They are literally about every single thing that has been requested that Gordon put aside what he's been doing to "seek out." I think I'm reasonably qualified to state what a "genre trope" might or might not be, or what might or not be "subverting" such a trope. I hold an MFA with full honors from Chapman University (1999) and I've taught plenty (not as much as Sheila), nor as much as Jim Blaylock, who led my committee and who wrote the fifteen-page introduction to my first collection. Mary Rickert already had come on here and said this whole conversation made her feel like a "cipher." Bless her - because nobody's going to "make me" feel like anything. Then there was all this conversation about stories about "characters" and "emotion" and "Gordon only likes those plot-oriented boy stories." Wow. Well, out of the hundreds of stories I've written - I am not seeing anything like that, in any of them. As far as "guess the ending," I certainly do not write stories intended to "trick" or "misdirect" the reader, but I felt it was literally impossible, that any reader would have guessed the ending of the story of mine that most recently appeared in F & SF, due to its nature and narrative. I thought I said as delicately as I could that language was important to me. As a professional in this field (and others - though you wouldn't have bothered to Amazon me) I know that in general, yes, SF/F does not particularly value richness of language. In addition, the "experimentation" in form it tolerates is - well, pretty basic. But I value this. I value it against the stream, not with it. I'm a woman. I have never written about "traditional" SF subjects, and have only used "SF tropes" for purposes of ludicrosity and laughter. If my stories do feature male protagonists - they're hardly square-jawed heroes. They're clowns or men in nontraditional roles (like Gary. He orders the aftershave and sees to it the rugs are vacuumed and lightbulbs are changed). It wouldn't have bothered me except it's gone on and on. It seemed that the overt genre bias thing was settled, then suddenly it was all about those things you listed above. None of which, have I ever, in any way, associated with anything I've ever done. Then I saw that Murphy points out you are with this other magazine. And I think, "Oh, that's the one I read all the stories for and wrote my second lifetime review." I never thought I'd repeat my high school English teacher's statement: "Profanity is the last refuge of those who can neither write, nor think." All you had to do was just tone down, and lay off, and open your eyes. You cannot possibly have been sincere in these assertions of poor writing, poor thinking, and adherence to some - well - WIMMEN and MINORITIES CAN'T BE ASTRANUTS theses - that I wrote above, or do you sincerely think that Ideomancer's fiction is so many thousand cuts above F & SF's and Gordon's TOC's should be instantly replaced? What is it you have been saying, if not this? What you've been doing is repeating over and over again the type of work that Sheila and I DO and have DONE and believe me, against more barriers and assumptions and roadblocks than can ever be imagined.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:37 pm:    Last year, of those stories, only two were written by men. This year, so far, we've experimented with a hypertext story involving, among others, two women, one of whom is a woman of color. And the slush I see is only a small fragment of F&SF's volume. I'm reviewing books by Justina Robson, Sue Lange, and <i>Interfictions>/i>, which features Tempest and a number of women writers and writers of color. I'm interviewing L. Timmel Duchamp. In the fall, Black Dragon, White Dragon will have my alternate history written from an African's viewpoint. And, oh yeah, that anthology I mentioned? I've gotten commitments from several non-white writers. (It may take some time as anthologies are a tough sell.)   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:56 pm:    Google is an amazing thing, Amy.   Elizabeth L Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 06:17 pm:    I've been a bit silent for a day or so -- shocking I know -- ( ) because I'm still trying to process everything I've seen and read over the past week. I was privy to the information on the gender breakdown for F&SF and Asimov's thanks to a kind soul who sent the numbers my way. The numbers are as follows: 1991 -- KKR takes over from Ferman 53% of stories were by women 1997 -- GVG takes over from KKR 40% of stories were by women 2006 -- Last full year of data 20% of stories were by women What happened? I'm trying to get my head around this data. As I've said before, I just can't accept the idea that somehow, the quality of women's SF has declined over the intervening years since Ferman left F&SF. So, the decline in the percentage of stories by women in F&SF -- from a whopping 53% to 20% -- must be due to something else. It started with KKR (a 13% decline) and then accelerated under GVG (20%). Did Ferman have editorial preferences that led to more stories by women? When KKR and then GVG took over, did they have editorial preferences that led to a decline in women's stories? Were women discouraged by the new editor's preferences and so slowly stopped submitting? It's not good, regardless of the reason, IMNSHO. As I've said to others privately, F&SF is one of the pre-eminent markets for fantasy and science fiction. It is one of the few qualifying venues for SFWA, and always garners a lot of award nominations. The fact that fewer and fewer women are getting published is not good for women sf writers or the SF field. In 2006, for example, there were 59 stories by men and only -- ONLY -- 15 stories by women. How can we expect women to get on the Hugo ballot when there are so few stories by women out there in the professional markets? I've said just about everything I can say about this issue. I'm not going to engage anyone in mud-slinging (I know, that's a first, right? ) but I want to close by repeating that I find it very discouraging, especially given the high percentage of women published in 1991.   Sean Melican Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 06:38 pm:    I have never written about "traditional" SF subjects... Bullshit. I'm sorry if I've offended your delicate sensibilities. "The Perfect Stranger" is about genetic modification. (Genre trope.)Yes, it approaches it from an unusual perspective, a personal perspective, and yes, it has a non-traditional male role. (I'm a stay-home dad.) It's quite good. I felt uncomfortable saying anything because it's obviously quite personal. (My condolences. I cannot imagine.) Do you disagree with my assessments of each story? Point to where I'm wrong. None of which, have I ever, in any way, associated with anything I've ever done. You're confusing what you written with the overall statistical analysis of what F&SF has published. You cannot possibly have been sincere in these assertions of poor writing, poor thinking, and adherence to some - well - WIMMEN and MINORITIES CAN'T BE ASTRANUTS theses - that I wrote above, or do you sincerely think that Ideomancer's fiction is so many thousand cuts above F & SF's and Gordon's TOC's should be instantly replaced? Talk about your confused structures. How does saying that specific stories in F&SF are deeply flawed (sorry, Gordon; I stand by my words and I'm not alone: Nick Gevers, Rich Horton, Lois Tilton, and Tangent have all criticized F&SF, as much as I) translate/generalize to (1) women and minorities can't be ___ and (2) Ideomancer is infinitely superior? When did I say either of those things? I believe I've been arguing for more inclusion. More women, more minorities. But to do so without acknowledging the very real differences that race and ethnicity create is heinous. It essentially denies the real privileges men, whites, and heterosexuals enjoy. Being rich and black is very different from being rich and white, because a rich, black man is still black. He still stands a higher chance of being pulled over, searched, arrested, jailed. Ditto for women. Women earn, what, an average of 70% what men do? Women run a much higher risk of sexual assault and rape just because they're women. (Go ask Harlan. Connie should've grabbed his dick -- I'm sorry, his masculine protuberance as we should be all literary to show we can write -- and yanked it right off.) Gays can't marry. They run a higher risk of being physically assaulted. Ain't too many straight-bashings going on. But writers of speculative fiction almost never acknowledge these differences. Writers who take great care to be biologically, chemically and physically accurate are often sloppy with their prose (nobody talks in complete sentences, let alone whole well-organized paragraphs) and ignorant of sociological basics. Rick Bowes does a fantastic job of writing about what it's like to be gay. One writer (I won't name unless he wants me to) sent a story to me. I was completely confused until I looked up a number of references that are (I later found out) scattered throughout hip-hop. If I was black (or listened to hip-hop regularly), odds are good I'd have understood it easily. Gordon runs hot and cold. There are some months, most stories are excellent. And others, well, poorly written, clumsy, lazy. I hate stories with explantory paragraphs at the end -- neatly organized and articulate despite the hellish ordeal the characters have been through. As for your mis-reading that I believe Ideomancer is completely superior -- well, I think some of our stories are better than some of F&SF's. What a terrible person am I! Twenty lashes with a wet noodle. Certainly we do much more with structure: we've done second person, hypertext (which is not a fair comparison to a print magazine), Pirandello-esque stories. We publish a much higher percentage of women. We should be beaten! We're terrible people, letting them women run loose in the genre!   Byron Bailey Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 06:53 pm:    "I never thought I'd repeat my high school English teacher's statement: 'Profanity is the last refuge of those who can neither write, nor think.'" Your English teacher's analysis of profanity is at best incomplete.   Byron Bailey Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:13 pm:    "What happened? I'm trying to get my head around this data. As I've said before, I just can't accept the idea that somehow, the quality of women's SF has declined over the intervening years since Ferman left F&SF. So, the decline in the percentage of stories by women in F&SF -- from a whopping 53% to 20% -- must be due to something else. It started with KKR (a 13% decline) and then accelerated under GVG (20%)." I'm wondering how much of that might be due to the increased proliferation of smaller markets such as _Ideomancer_ which may be more along the lines of what more women want to read or write.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:27 pm:    In 1994 Realms of Fantasy published its first issue. I don't know how many women who had been sending stories to F&SF started submitting more to ROF (known to publish fantasy exclusively) but that might be a worthwhile reality check.   PM Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:38 pm:    Seems odd to me though that women or anyone for that matter would seek out a lesser paying, less prestigious publication. Certainly, I can understand that if their work was rejected that they might choose another publication and perhaps find happiness there and remain.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:48 pm:    Realms of Fantasy is not less prestigious--and never was --it's a good-looking, well designed glossy. I have no idea of the pay comparison. It always had Shawna McCarthy as its editor--the editor who turned Asimov's into the magazine it has evolved into today-- and won the Hugo award for it.   Elizabeth L Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:59 pm:    Thanks, Ellen -- that is a reasonable suggestion. With other markets opening, esp. ROF, they may have submitted elsewhere. However, between 1997 and 2006, ROF published, on average, a slightly higher percent of men than women, so theoretically, F&SF should have lost male writers as well. In 1997, 60% of stories published in ROF were by women, but that was the high point of the data I have. I don't have data from the first few years of ROF's existence, which might explain more. From 1998 on it was between 29% (1999) and 50% (2000) with the average being 44% over the ten years. For Asimov's, the percent of stories by women ranged from 19% (2003) to 30% (2002) with an average of 25.7% over the 10 years. I can understand that some women might try other markets when they opened, and some may have favored ROF over F&SF, but given the success women were apparently having at F&SF under Ferman, I would wonder why they would leave. As well, we see a general decline in the percent of women published at ROF as well as F&SF during this 10 year period. At Asimov's, the percent stayed approximately the same, with a few ups and downs but averaging 25% We'd actually need some hard numbers on the slush pile gender breakdown and frequency to say anything more definitive.   PM Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:59 pm:    Let's just go with perception. Some folk may perceive RoF as prestigious or more prestigious than F&SF. Additionally, the editor may have pull in drawing writers to the publication.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:06 pm:    Elizbeth, The other important thing to take note of is WHO was submitting and getting published in any given publication. In short fiction, the turnover is about 5-7 years that most short story writers move on to novels. eg. Nancy Kress wrote a lot of short fiction in a short spurt of time. So did Pat Murphy, Lisa Goldstein, Connie Willis and so on and so forth. Then they rartely did/do. They mostly write novels. For men, I don't recall as striking a change in what they wrote. Please be aware, this is all from memory and perception of what and who I published in OMNI over the years.   Byron Bailey Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:07 pm:    "Certainly, I can understand that if their work was rejected that they might choose another publication and perhaps find happiness there and remain." I've been submitting for over a decade with no success. I think unless you're some kind of literary genius right out of the box which does occasionally happen, you're in it for the long seige. With so many other options available, the long seige might lose its appeal for many. Furthermore, fantasy and science fiction seem to have been historically more male dominated. F&SF, Asimov's, and Analog as kind of the standard bearers of the genre, may by default receive the reputation of the overall genre whether they are truly representative of it or not. Combine these two trends, and I can imagine why a lot of women would just go with a smaller publication. Furthermore, we seem to be in a trend where a lot of long standing media/literary institutions are fracturing into smaller niches. This may be part of that trend, too. Some women may very well be saying, "The hell with the boys club. I'll just make my own club."   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:16 pm:    First off, every single thing I write is "personal" (I think most writers would say that). In the sense that my inspiration is usually "personal" (of import to me), maybe that's a little different. I'm not sure I can even process all this information - but Sean, let's agree to take this one down a notch. I don't disagree with any of the specific statements you made, and any specific story or even issue of any publication is certainly able to be criticized in many ways. And toward that end, I'm further publicizing one of my favorite artists - http://galleryoftheabsurd.typepad.com/14/ I've been thinking for weeks I should do another switch.blade. "Candy" was the previous theme and I was quite up on that today. But now I'm not so sure "candy's" the best. After all, with Paris Hilton going to jail - how will we survive the loss of such beauty to our mundane lives?   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:26 pm:    Ellen, regarding the "short fiction" and then "novels" and so-on, these are really huge topics. I have many friends who are female writers who write ONLY novels. I had to struggle to even think to write a novel, and was helped through with lots of encouragement. I will say they are two totally different forms. And I can see, once having mastered short fiction, and if one could master novels as the authors you mention - you might not have that much to say in the area of short fiction, afterward. It's a difference in what you're going to write about and how - where your creative mind and energy is going, I guess. I've been heartily writing my current book for months now. I really don't appreciate the "story" ideas that come along. They are frustrating since, not only my time, but my energy and focus is limited and I can't afford to diffuse it right now. I also wanted to say that topics like "politics" or other "catch all" conversation starters (or enders) just don't work for me as "story inspiration." There's been nothing mentioned here that gave me the least spark of anything except the thought that - if that captain in "The Cold Equations" had been female, it would have automatically become a story about "What kind of woman could punt that young girl out like that?" All facts of the situation aside (assuming the story's premise were true). So I'm turning and mulling that one over. Not to mention there were problems with the initial setup, as many have pointed out over the years. Apparently even the movie that was made focused on how evil the corporation was that set up the situation that caused fatalities for stowaways. Everybody has his or her own process. Paris Hilton causing such "loss of beauty" to our "mundane world," Plumpy the Fat Purple Alien, the lady who has to push a girl who looks like her daughter out the airlock. Taz has turned from a sweet little dog grateful for a home into a greedy, swaggering little 4 pound bully. I have to work on Monday. Badger is getting old, and so am I.   Mary Anne Mohanraj Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 04:29 am:    Note: while I have been an active magazine/anthology fiction editor in the past (for several years), I haven't edited anything in the past few years, concentrating on my own novel-writing. This may actually help my take on the discussion, since I have experience, but no publication currently at stake. :-) For those who don't know me, I have been a fiction editor at Clean Sheets and Strange Horizons. I founded both magazines, and helped set initial editorial practices. I also edited various anthologies, including Aqua Erotica (last heard in its fourth printing, with over 100K copies sold) for Random House, and The Best of Strange Horizons. Sorry this is long. ***** There are three axes of gender at play here, and it does no good to confuse them. Axis 1. Stories written by women. Axis 2. Stories with female protagonists. Axis 3. 'Girl' stories. *** Axis 1. Stories written by women. This is probably the most important/dangerous axis from an editor's point of view, in that, if I were editing today, I'd be very concerned about my own unconscious biases. Numerous studies (and books analyzing the studies) have overwhelmingly shown that in today's society, both men and women consistently and constantly give preference to men in the marketplace. There are some minor exceptions (i.e., in erotica, it's a bit easier to get published with a female name), but by and large, editors are people too, and influenced on a deep level by prevailing social paradigms. This is a hard bias for editors to admit to, because consciously, you may be trying very hard to be unbiased. But it's critical to realize that your conscious efforts are almost certainly inadequate -- and probably woefully inadequate to the task. In this arena, the unconscious mind wins. Given this, if I were editing today, I would make my first pass on reading incoming submitted material a blind pass, stripping off all author names, and would do whatever automation of process that was necessary to make that possible. (Yes, I know this is somewhat onerous -- the thought of actually implementing it makes me groan a bit. And yes, this is easier to automate for those editors who take electronic vs. print submissions -- but it can be done for either. What it requires at the print level are reliable volunteer(s) to strip the names from manuscripts and create a tracking sheet for materials before passing them on to the editor.) At this point, I consider blind evaluation a minimum professional standard for combating the deep and pernicious gender bias in our society, and would strongly argue for it in professional situations across the board -- hiring employees, promotions, etc., to whatever extent it's practically feasible. Note: Some editors may then choose to revisit the stories (after an initial blind read) with names re-attached before making final rejection/acceptance decisions, in order to balance possible 'name weight' issues with non-discrimination practices. An editor may well decide that a slightly weaker story by a big-name author, for example, is the best choice for their publication, or that a story by an author they enjoy and trust deserves a second or third read before rejection. I consider that an understandable compromise practice, although it should be handled with some care. *** Axis 2. Stories with female protagonists. This is a greyer area, since it's not a question of active discrimination, but rather a question of encouraging diversity in the material you present. I consider this a purely editorial decision in some ways -- if Gordon or Jed, for example, decided that he just preferred stories with male protagonists, and wanted to publish only those, I'd say that was entirely his decision. I'd have no problem with a magazine titled 'All-Male Adventure Stories' -- as long as a proportionate percentage of the stories submitted by women were being published by the magazine. I.e., if one-tenth of the submissions are by women, roughly one-tenth of the published stories should also be by women. (If they aren't, then there are two possible explanations: editorial bias in a non-blind editorial process, or women just don't write male adventure protagonists as well, which I find implausible, but can at least be checked for using a blind process.) That said, speaking purely as a reader, I prefer to read some fiction with female (people of color, queer, etc.) protagonists, and am more likely to enjoy a magazine/anthology/book that features a mix of characters that seems at least vaguely representative of my own experience in the real world, which is highly diverse. Does that mean I won't read a book that's all about white men? Not at all -- if I were reading Horatio Hornblower stories, given the historical time and setting, I would find it completely appropriate that the stories center on white men (though not necessarily straight white men :-). But allowing for cultural specificities and other valid reasons why an author might choose to focus on a particular gender (ethnicity/orientation), I both prefer reading diversely, and am a member of a diverse readership that would like to occasionally identify closely with the protagonist of a story. A canny editor will likely take that into account when choosing material for publication, and publish stories with a wide range of protagonists to appeal to a broad range of readers and reader tastes. *** Axis 3. 'Girl' stories. Which we are currently defining (apparently) as stories putting a high priority on emotion/characterization and putting low-priority on (though not necessarily leaving out) cool whiz-bang ideas and future tech. I have a lot of trouble with this labelling method. While I do, personally, tend to prefer stories that prioritize emotional and character development, I think labelling them 'girl' stories is a too-convenient shorthand that may actually reinforce pernicious gender stereotypes. Some women write very characterization-heavy stories, yes -- so do some men. And vice versa. I strongly resist the idea that female (or male) writers tend to write one kind of story over the other -- and even if they do, that may be a temporary cultural construct, and/or artifact of the publishing market. In any case, I don't think it's an editor's responsibility to try to compensate for that perceived, possibly imaginary, correlation. Can we just talk about 'characterization' stories vs. 'idea' stories, please? With that gender-neutral framework in mind, it seems much easier as an editor to simply say that I would want to publish stories that provide the strongest presentation of emotion/character *as well as* idea. If forced to choose, I would probably choose an 'characterization' story over an 'idea' story, unless it really was a superlative whiz-bang idea. But that's just a matter of personal taste, and if a magazine wants to focus on idea stories, and has a readership devoted to them, then as long as axis 1 and 2 are addressed appropriately, then axis 3 should be left entirely up to editorial/readerly discretion. *** And that's my two cents on the matter.   Mary Anne Mohanraj Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 04:36 am:    One final quick note re: blind process -- this can be simplified mightily by a simple change in submission guidelines. When I'm reading for literary contests, for example, generally the guidelines specify that a cover sheet be included with name/address info, but that the attached manuscript itself have no identifying info on its pages (only story title / page # in the header). That makes it extremely simple for a volunteer to remove and file the cover sheets -- and if there's no volunteer available, even making removing cover sheets the first step in an editor's process is likely to significantly reduce bias, since you're unlikely to remember name details from a stack of manuscripts where you've just stripped off the top pages.   John Joseph Adams Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 05:30 am:    Thanks for your thoughts, Mary Anne. That's a valid point about the girl/boy story labels, though if the essence of what is being called a "girl" story really only is a "character" story, then I would have to very much disagree that F&SF doesn't publish that kind of story. I think we almost always have a very strong idea component to our stories, but in our editorial process, character is key (it even says so in our guidelines). As for the blind process -- I'd be all for that, but I think it would be much harder to implement than anyone has suggested for us (since we take print-only subs). I see the following problems with it (as per Mary Anne's 4:36 am post on the subject): (1) Coordinating a volunteer to come in and do that limited task for us daily would be a hard thing to do, unless, say, some unemployed lover of SF happened to live across the street from our office. Possible solution: I could probably do it myself and wouldn't remember who wrote what, especially if I made a point of not examining the mss. closely when unpacking them. Also, instructions could say to include the cover letter at the end of the mss., so that would reduce the chances of me seeing the author's name. (2) Getting people to actually submit this way would be difficult. I mean, we can't even consistently get everyone to submit SASEs or otherwise follow standard ms. format. A large number of readers would start submitting this way, but I think a large majority of old hands and/or pros would not bother with that method. And in some cases, the anonymity would not actually accomplish anything since some writers write stories using a recurring character. (Admittedly, this would be a rather small percentage, especially in the slush.) (3) I think it would be difficult to keep the SASE with the manuscript and yet keep it out of eyesight when handling it, thus risking breaching anonymity. Now, don't get me wrong. I actually like this idea. When I was reading submissions for Shimmer's pirate issue (which I'm guest-editing), I read all the submissions blind, and Shimmer actually always does that. (I haven't made all my final selections yet, or else I'd post my TOC for you all to analyze.) The thing with Shimmer is that they're electronic, and they have a "wrangler" who anonymizes all the mss. before sending them onto editorial. One of the things I like about the idea is not that just it serves to help out with gender bias--it helps with *all* biases. So when you get the 999th story from Joe Blow, you can read it completely fresh. As an editor you strive to do that anyway, of course, but I'm sure some unconscious bias occurs with such situations (i.e., when you've read 1000 bad stories by one author, you come to expect that #1001 will be bad also). This would definitely work a lot better with electronic subs, as it eliminates a number of problems with anonymization, and it'll also make all the manuscripts look the same, thus making them even more indistinguishable from each other. (Yes, I could recognize some authors by the way their manuscripts *look*.) But anyway, like I said, I think it would be interesting to read mss. this way, but I think it's unlikely that it's a model we'll switch to. I am however interested to see others come up with possible solutions, if anyone has further suggestions. And of course the ultimate decision is Gordon's, and he and I haven't discussed this yet, so I don't know his feelings on the subject. I will note that I've read at least one story at F&SF anonymously -- the above mentioned "How to Talk to Girls at Parties" by Neil Gaiman. Gordon probably knew who it was from when he read it, but Gaiman didn't have his name on the title page, or at the top of the pages, so when Gordon handed the ms. to me, it was anonymous. Turned out, Gaiman had put his name on the last page after the story, so I read the whole thing and then discovered who it was by. That was an interesting reading experience as well. I immediately liked the story, and I knew something about it seemed familiar, but I couldn't pinpoint who it might be by. (Actually, I might be the only person who's actually read that story who didn't know who it was by when he read it.)   des lewis Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 05:34 am:    With Nemonymous, over five years, I have simply asked for wholly anonymous email submissions which I then categorically contracted or rejected *before* knowing the author's name. However, I do take your point, Mary, about some publications needing 'name-weight' considerations before issuing a contract. But would they reject blindly, I wonder, like I have done? If you are going in this direction at all, I suggest it is neater to be as 'pure' as possible. But I would say that! :-) des PS: As a completely separate issue, I then went on to publish the stories anonymously ... late-labelling them in the subsequent issue.   Elizabeth L Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 05:58 am:    Great post, Mary Anne, and agreed on every point.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 06:40 am:    John, I'm glad you responded to Mary Anne's thoughtful message. I hope you and Gordon will be able to talk these suggestions over.   PM Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 07:00 am:    Granted it's not a 100% solution but why not implement it and see how many are willing to submit using a guideline that makes it easier to anonymize (i.e. name on a single page)? So for example if the name and title are on a single page then that page can be removed. And as long as the title is on the rest of the submission then you're good to go.   Mary Anne Mohanraj Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 07:08 am:    By the way, I just wanted to add that I wasn't focusing my post specifically on F&SF's editorial practices, although I realize that started this discussion off. There have been past years when I've read F&SF assiduously, and enjoyed it quite a bit. But between grad school, a full-time teaching job, and keeping up with S. Asian literary fiction (which is what I currently write and teach), I've afraid I've gotten woefully behind in my spec fic short fiction reading in the last few years. So my post was meant as a general assessment/recommendations across the editorial board of a genre I do still care deeply about, but am not particularly up-to-date on, and should not be taken as a criticism of any particular publication.   des lewis Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 07:35 am:    using a guideline that makes it easier to anonymize (i.e. name on a single page)? From experience, the only sensible and failsafe method is wholly anonymous email submissions - a method seen as above board by all those involved - and it needs to be verifiable in that way if you are doing it for 'bias' reasons - rather than for 'Aesthetic' reasons as I do.   Mary Anne Mohanraj Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 07:55 am:    Des, I have to disagree with your assessment, much as I personally prefer electronic subs for my own convenience. Plenty of mainstream literary awards and publications use print blind submission processes to good effect. Yes, such procedures require that the administrators of the awards/etc. be trustworthy, and perceived as such -- but generally, the submitting writers seem quite comfortable with that assessment. Keep in mind that conscious and overt sexism/racism/etc. is such a tiny fraction of the general problem -- it's the unconscious bias that's truly worrisome and difficult for everyone to combat. JJA, I understand your concerns about practicality, and do think that it's up to each editor in the end, to determine whether they gain enough from non-discriminatory practices to make them worth the extra effort. That said, I'd welcome even small moves in that direction; as PM says above, even if it's not 100%, every little move towards removing bias does help. As a writer, I'd be likely to prioritize my own short fiction submissions towards publications that explicitly used blind reading practices -- even 'initial blind' or 'partial blind' would be an incentive to favor a market, especially if I came from a historically disadvantaged group (or, as in my own case, several such groups). I would just trust far more that my work would get a fair reading and evaluation, and would be willing to give up any 'name recognition' my own name carried in exchange for the overall levelling of the playing field. Some writers may feel differently, of course, especially if they feel that they're giving up a perceived or real advantage by eliminating their name from (initial) consideration. Something for an editor to be aware of, in contemplating a move to blind or part-blind reading.   K. Tempest Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 08:17 am:    Why is it that Mary Anne always comes into a conversation making sense? Oh, that's right, because she's awesome. I particularly agree on the point about 'girl stories' being an ultimately non-helpful term. It's kicked off some interesting conversation, certainly. But I hope that most people (who aren't crazy) realize that the types of stories we're discussing her are very nuanced and complex, as good fiction should be. I say again, I defintiely don't advocate the use of the terms girl or boy stories in general. they've been helpful here to some extent. However, I would like to point out to JJA that the kind of stories I've been talking about are not *just* character stories. I like Delia's thoughts /definitions the best. they're on that LJ post I linked to a while back. Just because a story has a fully realized character doesn't mean it's not a 'boy story' or whatever. I feel like we need a literary scholar to come in here and create terms that don't suck.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 08:30 am:    I am a literary scholar. http://members.aol.com/asterling/cruel_girl.htm   des lewis Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 08:39 am:    it's the unconscious bias that's truly worrisome and difficult for everyone to combat. I agree with the above wholeheartedly and naturally accept your argument for the efficacy of blind paper submissions in your experience. I'd say however it is administratively easier with anonymous email submissions, with no possibility of accidental viewing of the author's details. I was not implying a lack of trust, but rather potential indefinable problems with blind paper submssions whilst there is no possibility at all of unpredictable misperception of the process when using anonymous emails. Of course, within my method, the anonymous email and its contents could be transferred into hard paper if required at a certain more advanced stage in the reading process.   John Joseph Adams Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 09:18 am:    Tempest -- I realize that. I've read Delia's definition. I was just responding to Mary Anne, who in her comment seemed to boil down the difference between the two kinds of stories as being character-based or idea-based. As for the definition, however, the reason I've been asking you, someone, anyone to come up with some examples is that it's still a very nebulous thing we're talking about. I said that I'd prefer if you found some examples in F&SF, but really I'll take examples from anywhere. Please, let's start discussing some specific stories so we can make some progress in the discussion. I want to understand what you're talking about, but I still don't.   Sean Melican Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 10:39 am:    John, May I? From F&SF, Charlie's Maggot and Vertir & Kuikin stories as well as Matthew Hughes' stories, are external (supposed 'boy') stories: the characters exist, but it is the events around them and how they respond that matters. By the end, although the characters have changed somewhat, grown a little perhaps, they must, by convention, remain relatively unchanged. (If they changed radically, by death or permanent trauma, the next stories could not be a part of the canon.) The point, however, is that the external world is the critical force driving the narrative: something is wrong in the external world and must be righted. (The noosphere acts as an external narrative driving force, because it is a literalization of psychological construcs.) By the end, the world will have altered dramatically, but the characters will remain relatively constant. By contrast, Charlie's "Pervert" is an internal (suppose 'girl') story: nothing is wrong with the world (though the reader may see that the constructed world is unbalanced, the characters do not); it is the character's change that matters, how he views the world, how he is different. The wrongness is internalized. The character must change (or not). In the end, the external world will remain relatively unchanged, but the internal world, the character, will have made a radical change within him- or herself. It is an embarassing stereotype, but it does seem men are more drawn to external worlds -- where men are heroes who change the world but are unchanged by it (there's a world of psychology there) -- and women are more drawn to internal worlds. It is unfair, in a sense, to draw such a sharp line. Of course stories can do both, of course some men like internal stories and some women like external stories, and probably both derive pleasure from both, but the pleasures are different. The external world stories reinforce the notion that order does exist and can be (re)enforced by are actions. It is, in some sense, a denial of reality: the world is random to a great degree and well beyond our ability to control. The internal world stories reinforce the notion that we are capable of change even if the world is not. We can be better people, find our true selves: even though the world is un-ordered, and though death, cruelty, stupidity, ignorance, hatred will never be eliminated, we can improve ourselves. Anyone disagree?   Sean Melican Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 10:45 am:    Erm... from Interfictions two stories that have external events mirroring, reflecting, supporting internal events: Michael J. DeLuca's "The Utter Proximity of God" and Mikal Trimm's "Climbing Redemption Mountain."   Elizabeth L Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 11:40 am:    Sean, I like your analysis. I think Matt Hughes is a very good writer and I have enjoyed some of his stories in F&SF, but I do feel very distant from his main characters -- I don't feel that I get inside them deeply enough to satisfy my preferences. I do like idea stories but I need my emotion/internal involvement in a story to make it really resonate with me. Otherwise, I prefer to read non-fiction articles in journals when I want cool science or tech info. To me, stories are always about how characters deal with whatever reality they are facing -- be they ones filled with magic or future science or evil. Stories that focus too much on ideas/whiz-bang-techne fail to engage me unless I have access to the world through a character's interior. I understand that not everyone likes that or writes that, but that is what this reader connects with. I think that's one of the reasons I like some of Charlie Stross's work -- esp. when he inserts a young female protagonist like he did in Accelerando and Iron Sunrise -- Stross's SF is almost overwhelingly whiz-bang-techne-idea heavy, but there are some very interesting characters present with enough depth to draw me in. I'll go through and see if I can find a few stories from F&SF that fit my bill and discuss later this weekend.   Sean Melican Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 12:54 pm:    Before there are too many "Yes but..." posts (if any), a quick note: I'm not attempting to build a theoretical construct full of axioms, correlaries and all that good stuff. I just wanted to come up with a working rule-of-thumb that avoids, as best as possible, gender labels. Also, I'm not of the opinion that genre trope-ness is inherently a bad thing. Gene Wolfe's "Green Glass" is about as cliche as you can get. ("Okay," he says to the producer, "it's about this guy trapped on a UFO..." "Next!" cries the producer.) (A whole reprint anthology, probably two or three, could be done on that one idea.) I knew the ending almost from teh get-go. Really. The names gave it away. But it's the difference between Yo-Yo Ma and the kid next door practicing on his cello.   Sean Melican Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 02:14 pm:    Let me make this last thing clear: "How to Talk to Girls..." is an example of genre trope done well. I'm not opposed to such stories, but tropes that don't rise above clunky language and shallow characters just suck (and the line between ain't that thin), and I'd like variety. When every story is a standard trope -- yawn.   GSH Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 04:10 pm:    I wonder what writers just starting out (or still early in their writing careers) should think about a blind submissions process? Consider F&SF: I gather from 400 to 600 submissions per month hit their PO box. I assume every effort gets a serious look and an honest evaluation on its own merit--but that's still a lot of new material to consider, and a lot for any new writer's offering to get lost in. That's where I suspect name recognition might be a relevant factor. If one continues to submit, and if one's submissions--even though rejected--consistently prove interesting to the harried first reader, one's name on the title page might earn an increasing level of attention over time. Isn't that a good reason why you might want an editor to know who's submitting a manuscript right from the get-go? If you're a member of an under-represented demographic, would anonymity until the point judgement be a greater advantage? I'm posing those questions because I don't know the answers. Maybe my assumptions are invalid. Also, I'm a member of the over-represented demographic (based on an analysis of the successes of others, not my own), so my answers might not be the same as yours.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 06:27 pm:    Mary Anne, I know you and I don't agree on much, but I really liked your posts on the topic. It came off as reasoned, insightful and on the level. And believe it or not, I'd sign off on a blind submission process. I think if one can set up the infrastructure for it, that would be the best solution. It would get around issues related to the gender problem (which even I admit exists, I simply do not agree with some of the proposed tactics for dealing with it) and it would get around the charge that Networking gets some folks to the head of the line.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 05:06 pm:    This is a little late, but I finally found somebody who could really help with the right definitions. This critic is far more informed than me: http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/how-to-talk-postmodern.html   Dave Truesdale Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 06:06 pm:    Wonderful, Amy, and thanks for the humorous explanation. How obviously true! ;)   Sean Melican Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 06:07 pm:    There are poseurs in every crowd. There's a difference between euphemism and precision. So, Clute and Delany are just really good at euphemism, huh?   Jeff Smith Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:51 pm:    Ellen: There is a website called "Women in Architecture" that includes the following statement: We, members of Women in Architecture at UIUC ((University of Illinois)), came together to provide a forum of discussion regarding issues and concerns of women practicing in a field that is still predominately male. So I guess the number of women architects is small, but at least above zero.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 05:34 am:    That was a funny article, Amy. I went to grad school during the first few gasps of po-mo speak and had to master the lingo to survive, but I never did buy it. Yes, some of the terminology is more precise, but "Poseurs r Us", is right.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 08:11 am:    thanks, Jeff.   Bluejack Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 10:45 am:    Way back in this thread, Matt Hughes made a very important observation: quote: I've been wrestling with this. To reject publishable stories just because they are written by women (or any other definable category of persons) is to exercise an unfair bias. It is wrong. But if one sets out to publish the kind of stories that one likes, and that one's readers like, and if that unintentionally excludes some authors, is that bias against that category of persons? And is it wrong? I can't imagine any sensible person using the word 'sexist' to describe Gordon Van Gelder. As he points out, his record speaks for itself. I think Maryann Mohanraj accurately teases apart the different dimensions of editorial decision making that might be subject to terms such as 'sexism' or 'gender bias.' Gender bias, I would argue, can only refer to a disinclination to buy stories from authors of a particular gender. *Not* to the gender of the protagonist; *not* to the target audience of the story. Unfortunately, I think people are liable to see gender bias in the kind of editorial decisions that Matt describes. Even Maryann might want to recalculate her statistics: if I decide only stories with male protagonists are appropriate for my "All Male Adventure Stories" magazine, and I receive 25% of my submissions from female authors, attempting to ensure that 25% of the published stories are by female authors may not serve the magazine well simply because writing an opposite-gender protagonist is a much harder authorial challenge that writing a same-gender protagonist. (That said, I actually think women tend to a better job at gender crossover than men do: I can't tell you how many stories have actually caused me pain when male authors try to write female protagonists.) Gordon's conclusion is that he should go with his gut because that's what's right for his magazine. I know in my heart of hearts that Gordon isn't sexist, and that anyone who calls him so is making a mistake that reflects more poorly on the accuser. Nor can I imagine that Gordon has any disinclination to buy from female authors. Certainly any crude attempt to balance statistics is misguided: subjecting the inductive process of editorial decision based on qualitative analysis to the deductive process of quantitative statistics would be idiocy. Matt questioned: is it wrong to publish the stories you as an editor like and feel your readers will like? I don't want to live in the world where that's wrong. Indeed, it has always been part of an author's job to find the right market for his or her story, or to write the right story for his or her intended market. Part of that is looking at what the market publishes -- ie., at the preferences of the editor. It might be an interesting exercise to try to publish a magazine that is a statistical mirror of society at large (ah, but whose society?) with an exact match of white, black, latino, chinese, japanese, korean, male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, authors, protagonists, and target-audiences. But perhaps that exercise would best be left for a fiction writer to attempt-- in fiction. (Satire, I expect it would be.) (Note: more to correct for unconscious Big Name Bias than for gender bias, at AEon speculative fiction we do employ a blind reading mechanism. It does add some administrative overhead, and sometimes the process slips and some knowledge of the author gets through to the reader (those of you who use distinctive manual typewriters know who you are!), but by and large it's not that hard to shift to. I'll try to work up some gender-bias results for some future discussion.) Anyway, the worst thing about this discussion is that this meme has somehow become attached to one of the strongest magazines publishing short fiction, and one of the industries best editors. I can imagine a dozen better candidates for this kind of scrutiny, but Gordon made the mistake of being open about his numbers. Way to punish someone for trying to do the right thing, folks.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 11:35 am:    Bluejack, I agree that Gordon does not seem to be sexist. His record proves that he is willing to buy stories from women writers, and he does publish stories featuring female protagonists. However, his editorial choices over the years may have -- may have -- led to a decline in the number of stories by women writers. The jury is still out on the exact cause of the decline, because there may be other reasons why fewer women are being published in F&SF when compared to when Ferman was at the reins. Still, I think that since Gordon wears two caps -- editor and publisher -- he should think about both roles when making editorial decisions. If there is a perception that he is biased towards stories written by women, and this thread proves that there is that perception, right or wrong, he should do something about it because it can't be good (except among anti-feminists) for readers and subscribers and potential writers to have that perception attached to him and the magazine. Perhaps, it is not in the best interests of his publication to buy only what he "likes" if it leads to this perception. Instituting some kind of blind first read of stories may help dispel that perception. I am not for quotas, but I am for fairness. As Maryann said above, many of us are not aware of our gender (racial, ability, sexual orientation) biases and in fact, would be horrified to acknowledge having them, but they exist even among the most enlightened. Doing something concrete to address the possibility of gender bias influencing editorial decisions would help.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 11:36 am:    Sorry -- that should be Mary Anne.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 12:16 pm:    In this post-post-modern, astructural, acausal world, it is difficult to ascertain the precise mechanisms of . . . I just figured out there is NOVEL WRITING and STORY WRITING software. I cannot believe this! I have Final Draft that I am too stubborn to use (ja, and in my other secret life, I've doctored scripts and real ones too - HAR because I can "get along with other people") What a concept. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=novel+writing+software There are hundreds and hundreds of these, seemingly. What, pray tell, are they?   PM Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 01:18 pm:    "I can't tell you how many stories have actually caused me pain when male authors try to write female protagonists." I can understand your unwillingness to publish poor work. But it's past time for male writers to do better.   Bluejack Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 01:34 pm:    quote: There are hundreds and hundreds of these [novel writing software], seemingly. What, pray tell, are they? And what gender are they? Has anyone done a study to determine whether Gordon Van Gelder discriminates against computer generated stories? Perhaps we should run a slush bomb to find out...   Bluejack Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 01:50 pm:    quote: Elizabeth L wrote: Perhaps, it is not in the best interests of his publication to buy only what he "likes" if it leads to this perception. As you note: actual causality has not been demonstrated, only hypothesized. Personally, I would suggest that the perception has more to do with this frenzy of PC sharks sniffing after hypothetical blood than anything Gordon has done or said, or anything inherent in his editorial choices. That's my hypothesis, anyway. I'd like to see these sharks hunt down some real meat, which is surely out there to be hunted. In any case, I would sooner fire an editor than tell him or her to ignore the editorial instinct. Since Gordon is publisher it is entirely his call whether he fires himself as editor or not; it's a business decision. I'm particularly distressed that his thoughtful posts to this thread have apparently done nothing to alter the perception. Honestly, I can't imagine what would satisfy. If I were publisher, I would be certainly keep Gordon on as editor, and tell him to use those editorial instincts; and I would probably encourage him to quit posting in public places that only seem to perpetuate the meme. As I guess I would encourage myself to do, as well!   PM Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 02:52 pm:    Who ya callin' a PC shark? Seems to me that it's a valid conversation to discuss gender contributors and gender protagonists. It's up to GVG and JJA and F&SF contributors to discuss their choices. And they have provided some comment. But we can have the conversation without name calling or accusations.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 06:25 pm:    Personally, I would suggest that the perception has more to do with this frenzy of PC sharks sniffing after hypothetical blood than anything Gordon has done or said, or anything inherent in his editorial choices. That's my hypothesis, anyway. I'd like to see these sharks hunt down some real meat, which is surely out there to be hunted. Bluejack, for whatever reason, F&SF has become a magazine that publishes mostly male writers featuring stories with mostly male protagonists. The magazine publishes fewer women writers now than ever. That can't be denied and is, in my opinion, "real meat." It's legitimate. Readers and subscribers as well as others have raised it. You may not think the smaller number of women being published in such a major market is a problem, but others disagree. The question is why has this decline occurred? The perception among many is that gender bias is at least part of the explanation for this decline. People have also offered other possible reasons -- opening up of other markets, an editorial preference for "boy" v. "girl" stories, women being less competitive, women writing less short fiction than men, etc. I don't know all the reasons why this is the case but I do think it's a legitimate issue.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 06:38 pm:    Anyway, the worst thing about this discussion is that this meme has somehow become attached to one of the strongest magazines publishing short fiction, and one of the industries best editors. I can imagine a dozen better candidates for this kind of scrutiny, but Gordon made the mistake of being open about his numbers. Way to punish someone for trying to do the right thing, folks. I have to break it to you but this "meme" was attached to F&SF long before this thread. Even Gordon has heard comments on the issue, as he has discussed upthread. It has been discussed by writers, male and female, elsewhere before this thread started. It has been discussed informally at conventions and on blogs. It may not play in your spehere of influence or be a concern to those with whom you associate, but I have heard it as have a number of other posters. This is the first time that it has been addressed head on by the publisher/editor in public. I give Gordon a lot of credit for discussing this out in the open. I think that the decline in the number and percent of stories by women is probably due to a number of factors, but I can't rule out gender bias entirely. I don't know if it would be possible to overcome any gender bias in the selection process, since even if the gender of the writer was not known, the gender of the protagonist could still affect how the story was judged. As my quick tally showed, the vast majority of stories published in F&SF recently were by male writers who wrote male protagonists, and since Gordon buys what he likes, that seems to be what Gordon prefers. Of course, if you were really concerned about this meme being propagated, you might have not posted at all. This thread was pretty much dead until you did.   Steven Francis Murphy Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 06:56 pm:    I think what kills me about this discussion is that Ellen Datlow backs Gordon 100% and it is as if her opinion went completely and totally unheard.   Elizabeth L Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 08:20 pm:    Murphy, I think Ellen is a great editor. I used to read SCIFICTION with relish and I still visit the archive now and then to re-read my favorites. I mourned its passing -- still do. I will always buy her anthologies. While her opinions hold a lot of weight with me because they are educated opinions backed up by experience, even *she* might be wrong. It *is* possible.   Marguerite Reed Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 01:37 pm:    God, I tired myself out reading this.   Elizabeth L Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 07:47 pm:    I've only just recovered from writing it.   John Joseph Adams Posted on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 08:32 pm:    I got tired just waiting for this page to load. Damn, this is one long thread!