Fandom as viewed from an outside lens

I've been reading science fiction and fantasy for as long as I can remember. So, about five minutes. Give or take. Seriously though, I've long preferred that genre to others, though I tend to trend towards fantasy more these days. Not sure why, exactly, but it may be linked to my childhood fascination with dinosaurs (I absolutely loved them), and a fondness for reading mythologies. Well, retellings of them anyways. Not like I read the original Greek or anything. Despite all that, I wouldn't rightly call myself a 'fan'. In the sense that I really like something, yes, but not in the 'fandom' sense of conventions and fanzines and all that. I have no idea what sort of fandom we had here in New Zealand in the 80s, but I'd never even heard of a local convention until Armageddon started up, and that was a 'pop culture expo' rather than a literary convention. Nor did we have much of a magazine culture here, not for stories... well, not those kinds of stories. As I was told by an English teacher in high school, NZ literature tends more towards 'slice of life' sort of things. In the last few years I've become more aware of fandom... and its upsets. The last couple of years have been pretty fractious, though I couldn't say if it was more so relative to fandom's history. I suspect not. But I've also come to learn something of fandom's nature and ideals, at least as espoused by long term fans. I've met (on Facebook only, alas) some great people, smart and funny, wiser than I and more knowledgeable, and otherwise just awesome. And yet I am troubled. Fandom has a dark side. And not in a good way. Some of what I have to say may be skewed or just wrong, but this is what I've seen. So.... Fandom boasts of being inclusive and welcoming, even to the most extreme of outliers. It was founded by outcasts, you see, nerds and geeks and others outside what was the mainstream at the time. So many people who felt ill-fitting where they were, who felt a sense of relief and community when they came to fandom. They had found their people. And so exclusion came to be considered a heinous crime. And, it seems, still is. Which is laudable... to a point. There are all sorts of stories within fandom. Not the books, stories of fandom itself. How this famous person behaves, or how that one did this awful thing... but, over and over, it seems like they're allowed to get away with it. Because "they're just like that". Is that considered a reasonable defense anywhere else? There's the same affluenza crap too, people get or got away with things because they're famous, they wrote popular books, etc. But others... when someone complains, they're met with, "Oh. Yeah. he's like that. He's gonna do what he's gonna do," and a shrug. Guys known for sexually harassing women, or for pulling disruptive stunts and pushing their own agendas into everything, and they're just the dirty little secret. Don't talk about it. Don't look. What did you expect inviting _that_ guy in? Hell, there was a suspected (or known) child molester (dead now) and the local fan group debated over whether they could kick him out... they made sure their kids locked the bedroom door when he was around, but they had to fucking _debate_ over whether he should be allowed to stay in the community. I would like to think that's as bad as it ever got, but I don't know that anything has changed in any way other than scope. And I should note that there is some pushback, some prominent people within fandom have taken stands against harassment, and slowly, so slowly, the conventions seem to be getting their act together and treating such things as serious matters. Some of them. But still, shit happens. And then you get the people who delight in behaving badly but don't want to own it, so if anyone objects they twist it around and claim to be the real victim. "You can't kick me out," they cry, "What about free speech? What about tolerance? What about inclusion?" And again, there is a trend towards letting it slide. Or even defending the bad behaviour, because of course one person's free speech is so very much more important than the comfort or happiness of anyone else that they might affect. Making sure that one person feels welcome to continue spewing bile is more important than undoing the damage caused in making others feel unwelcome. But no, fandom must allow free speech, right? No matter where, or when, or how inappropriate, how stupid or bizarre. Assholes have rights too, but nobody has the right to be free of assholes, it seems. If you don't like it, walk away, it's on you to avoid the bad actors, not on them to actually pretend they belong in civilised society. God forbid anyone be held accountable for their speech, or take responsibility for it, or act like a fucking adult. To be a fan, it seems, you welcome some in, and turn a blind eye to how unwelcome others feel. If anyone complains, argue with them. Shout them down. That guy didn't mean it that way, he's a good guy, you're just a special snowflake, too politically correct. Thought police! How dare you! If this is fandom, I'm starting to think maybe they can just keep it. I just want to read books.

On Fan Theories

Seems like these days people love to come up with theories about their favourite shows. Every now and then I come across a article promoting "This fan has a brilliant theory!" stories. They always seem to have originally been posted on reddit or somewhere similar, and then presented on other sites.

And these aren't always just "Hey, I just noticed this thing that they hid in every episode", either. A lot of them are "What if" scenarios that it seems people have put a lot of thought into, occasionally using very twisted and distorted logic to hammer the square peg of the theory into a round hole. It's almost like it's the new thing to do...

I'm not sure why it seems to have taken off. Maybe it's just that, as with everything else, the Internet just makes it easier to share whatever comes to mind. Kinda like I'm doing now!

Some of them are pretty interesting. There was one that examined the dynamic between Batman and the Joker, concluding that the Joker's ultimate victory would be to make Batman kill him, that even in death he'd win. Which is why it's so important to Batman that he never cross that line.

Then there's the one which makes up a story that basically has Batman being sent back in time by a supervillain and stumbling across the scene of his parents' death. When he realises that nothing's going to happen, he winds up killing his own parents and then going mad and becoming the Joker. Which, as an official story published by DC would be an interesting idea.

As a fan-made OMG THIS GUY JUST CHANGED HOW WE THINK ABOUT THIS theory, it's hogwash. It's not connecting the dots in a new and interesting way, it's just proposing an implausible scenario.

And then there's this theory about The Princess Bride. Basically, some kid watches the movie for the first time and gets to the scene where the grandson asks if his grandpa will come back tomorrow to read to him some more. And grandpa says, "As you wish". And the kid comes up with the idea that grandpa is secretly the latest Dread Pirate Roberts and he's about to pass it on to the grandson.

And his dad is like OMG YOU BLEW MY MIND. And the article is like OMG THIS IS SO CLEVER HOW HAS NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE.

And I'm like, BECAUSE IT IS UTTER BOLLOCKS.

I don't blame the kid, he's a kid. But the adults going nuts over it? NO NO NO NO FUCKING NO.

1) Dread Pirate Roberts doesn't work that way in the movie. The name isn't handed down in a bloodline, like the Phantom. It's passed to a promising protegee, they dump the old crew, pick up a new one, and the former Roberts poses as the first mate and tells everyone that this really is Roberts, to help sell the identity. Heck, the end of the movie suggests that Inigo might be the next Roberts, and he sure as hell ain't Westley's son or grandson.

b) The line "As you wish" doesn't work like that, either. It wasn't a Dread Pirate Roberts thing, it was Westley's way of telling Buttercup, "I love you". Just because he was Dread Pirate Roberts for a time does not mean that the two things cross over.

Green) There's absolutely nothing cryptic about the ending! The grandfather is saying, "I love you" to his grandson in the way most meaningful to the story he was telling.

The idea that the story of Westley and Buttercup is historical rather than fantasy within the framework of the movie, that has merit. Mostly because that's the way that the original book by Goldman was written.

Maybe you could even argue that the grandson is their descendant, and that this story has been passed down through the generations. The grandfather certainly suggests as much when he says his father read it to him, and that he read it to his own son, and now he's going to read it to his grandson.

But other than that? Hogwash.

I don't know why people promote such ridiculous ideas. All I can say is clickbaiters gonna clickbait.

Divisions

It's depressing how everything becomes a battlefield now, a 'them' vs 'us' war, a 'pro' versus 'anti' thing. It might be somewhat palatable if there were two even sides that each had their own merits, but usually we get one side that's utter shit, and then there's everyone else, if we're lucky.

Politics is kind of a given, what with two party systems, but increasingly what we get is not an even match between competing ideologies, it's... well, here in New Zealand, the best I can say is it's a race to the bottom, one side is selling out as fast as they can while the other side is just fractured and incoherent, last I looked. I could be wrong, I don't usually pay attention to politics... mostly because that's the impression I get.

And America is worse, where one side is just increasingly... well, evil... but the other side has it's own bad track record, even as they try to pretend they're the good guys.

Gaming? We have Gamergate, which claims to be about journalistic integrity but is, I think, at best mostly about whining about political correctness. At worst it's about harassing women and making death threats and all that completely unwonderful stuff. If Gamergate has actually achieved any substantative gains in journalistic integrity I would love to know, because all I see is a bunch of assholes and a bunch of people who claim not to be WITH those assholes but still gather under the same banner. And then there are the people who claim to be avoiding taking sides... but honestly, seem really sympathetic to the bullshit Gamergate spins.

Then there's a group currently aggravating sci-fi fandom. Two groups actually, the Sad Puppies and the spin off, Rabid Puppies. It's unclear to pretty much everyone where the divider between the two is... and I think even for the Puppies it's not clear. It's a bit like Gamergate in that the Sad Puppies claim to be about noble things like bringing under-valued authors to public attention, etc., but all they really seem interested in is whining about 'social justice warriors' and political correctness. One of their leaders especially has a persecution complex big enough to be seen from space, having on several occasions spouted bile about how conservatives like him are oppressed by the nasty liberals, and how he and his fellow travellers live in fear of being rounded up and incarcerated... it almost makes you wonder if it's projection and that's what THEY would do to people they don't like.

As for the Rabid Puppies, they also complain about social justice warriors and all, but they just seem to want to cause havoc. Their main leader and one of their major figures each have a track record of saying some pretty horrible things.

And even World of Warcraft isn't safe. Recently Blizzard, the company that produces the game, decided that they would not be allowing flying in the current content. Ostensibly it's to make it so that players engage more with the world rather than flying over obstacles. This caused a lot of protests with some people complaining because they like flying in game and others saying it's a great idea because they like running around the map, and others who can't care less. Recently Blizzard announced that they WOULD put flying in, but as a compromise you basically have to do several activities that require exploring the world... such as doing all the quests in each zone and discovering all the major areas of the map. This does not seem to have changed the protests much, as people claim to have left the game because they can't fly (or because they reckon it's the latest in a line of issues they have with Blizzard's decisions), and there's still vitriol being flung about towards 'you anti-flying people' or 'you pro-flying people'. Thank god they don't have catchy nicknames like Sad Puppies and Gamergate...

Seriously, tonight I read a comment where a guy claimed in all apparent seriousness that Blizzard got a shock to their 'huge egos' when they realised they were wrong about flying, but because they refuse to back down they're punishing the player base by making them jump through hoops. Or something. Basically, Blizzard as a whole are assholes who hate their players.

What kind of sense does that even make? It's like some of the playerbase think they're actually at war with the company. It boggles the mind to think that they claim to love the game and yet actively hate the people that make it.

Which is not to say that I agree with everything Blizzard does, but geez, it's just a game.

But this is the world we live in, this is the path we're travelling. My way or the highway, if you're not with me then you're scum. Let's not even start on the wingnuts that twist their religion into an edifice of hate...

I can't even.

Unfriending - some thoughts

Whoa, been a while since I posted.

Earlier today I unfriended a guy on Facebook. I have mixed feelings about it, and I thought I'd unpack. Because if there's anything I can do, it's talk at length about inane shit. I'm like the Doctor, but considerably less awesome. Only one heart, not about to test whether I can regenerate, and my sonic screwdriver doesn't even change the TV channel...

Aaaanyways.

Mostly I keep my Facebook list to people I actually know. In more recent times I've expanded it out a bit to people I've met online, generally sci-fi fans who have been involved in discussions I've been part of, who have for some reason decided it was worth sending me a friend request. (I hardly ever send out requests myself, I don't want to bother people). But apart from that, mostly family or people I know from offline.

This particular guy is someone I knew from high school, so not exactly a fleeting online acquaintance. Still, we've never been friendly. Probably met twice offline since leaving high school, and sure, those encounters were relatively cordial, but... not much more. And we've not exactly clashed and had any horribly acrimonious arguments online... mostly.

I hate to say it, but my issues with him stem from his religion. We went to a Catholic high school, and while I didn't actually end up all that religious myself, he seems to have become a bit... zealous. Frankly, some of the views he's espoused would be at home with the religious right in America.

A few years ago, New Zealand went through its own ructions over marriage equality. First we had civil unions, then it became fully legal a couple of years ago. At this time, the dude had a Facebook thread about it. He was against it, of course. I got involved, tried to argue... didn't go so well. Before I gave up and... well, ok, I flounced. In my defense, he was arguing that giving equal marriage rights to gay people was the same as giving your cat the right to speak to fairies.

I still don't know what that means!

He seemed to think it meant giving them the right was pointless. For reasons. Like I said, I don't get it.

Lately, he's shared a couple of articles relating to the Planned Parenthood debacle going on in the States. Predictably, he's in the camp that believes Planned Parenthood is dissecting unborn babies for profit. I had one relatively low key discussion with one of his, shall we say, fellow travellers, which went considerably less low key when the second guy asserted that Planned Parenthood... you know what, I'm just gonna say PP from here on. So, PP were, in his words, hiding behind the mantle of 'women's health' so they could 'brutally dissect babies in the womb to maximise profits'.

I'm sorry, but when people start evangelising their conspracy theories, I tune out. Turned off notifications for that thread rather than see any more idiocy from him.

The guy from high school, though.... today, Facebook put in my feed a comment he made on someone's thread. In it, he asserted that because the PP employees had been matter-of-fact in the videos, and didn't use the usual euphemisms like 'products of conception' or 'fetal tissue', it somehow proves the point. Because, ZOMG, they talked about harvesting eyes and livers!

And I'm thinking... well, DUH. As far as tone? They thought they were talking to legitimate PROFESSIONALS involved in MEDICAL RESEARCH. How else are they supposed to talk? They were talking business with their peers (they thought). Just not the kind of business done for profit.

And as for being specific about organs and stuff... again, DUH. You can't test for brain chemistry in a foot. Scientists are gonna want to be specific about what they're doing. Then again, having no clue what they're talking about is pretty much par for the discourse.

But it was at that point I realised... there's no reasoning with that level of lunacy. No talking to people who sincerely want to believe that anyone would and could 'brutally dissect babies in the womb'. That kind of world view is just beyond fucked up.

And I'm better off without it.

Like I said on Facebook, I don't mind differing opinions, but I can do without regurgitations of hateful nonsense.

Of course, if a PROPER and THOROUGH investigation by LEGAL authorities reveals that PP are as bad as accused, I will be very contrite. I can admit when I'm wrong.

But I still wouldn't friend that guy again.

The latest in Sad Puppy Madness

So about those Puppies (and sorry to anyone who has no clue what I'm blathering about yet again).

To put it in general terms, a bunch of people have now decided they want to boycott a major sci fi publisher. In part this seems to be because they don't like the publisher anyways, but the stated reasoning is given as an objection to something one of the art directors said (more or less referenced in my previous post). Basically, they reckon she insulted them.

There is some debate on the specifics. *cough*understatement*cough*

And so they want an apology. Which they got, but they don't feel it was appropriately worded. So some of them want her fired, or think she should have been fired, and some... the publisher has a few other staff who have been openly critical, if not as incendiary, and so some of the group may want them fired as well.

It's getting ugly. Uglier. Whatever.

I won't get into the wheres and whyfores, let alone the whereasmuches, but there are a few things I wanted to note after spending a few hours as part of a thread on Facebook relating to this palaver.

One, the Puppies have adopted a few new memes. Such as 'she insulted us on company time!', which is... bizarre? How would they know what her break schedule is? I'll concede that the egregious comment occurred in relation to a post relating to one of the publisher's upcoming releases, albeit on an official press release or company communique, but... company time? Really?

The other one is to claim that she personally insulted a particular person who spent years fighting actual neo-Nazis in the struggle against apartheid. Except I'm not sure anyone outside their group, let alone the lady at the centre of the dispute, even knows who the dude is. I didn't. To top it all off, he doesn't even claim to be PART of their group, just supporting from the sidelines... so how was he personally insulted, anyways? Even if you accept that she did call the group 'neo-Nazis', he's not part of the group, right?

One genius claimed apartheid was in South America. I just really hope that was an autocorrect failure.

Also, do not ask for proof that he did the fighting. Just... don't.

The other thing I really want to note is the absurdity of the boycott itself. So.... you're not buying their books. Some of you wouldn't anyways, either because you have a grudge against the publisher to begin with, or against some of their authors, or you reckon they just don't publish anything you like.

To those people, you're trying to punish them by not doing something you were never gonna do anyways. Congratulations on achieving less than nothing.

For everyone else... so you're not buying their books. As opposed to all the other days you were not buying their books. Unless you're someone who buys a book a day, but who the hell has that kinda time and money? So anyways, you're not doing something that... say, anywhere from 50-90% of the time, you weren't gonna do it anyways. Congratulations on achieving nothing. It's more than less than nothing, but it's still nothing.

Seriously, if they can stir up the greater mass of readers out their to join them in their batshittery, I will be impressed. Mostly, I suspect they won't make much difference.

The other bizarre part is that, on at least one blog, they're getting people to take photos of their collection of books from this publisher to, I dunno, demonstrate what good customers they are? Or were. One guy sent in a picture of two books. A whole two books. Man, I can feel the bottom line plummet, losing a customer so dedicated and loyal.

On the flipside, some people have a lot of books. Like, a LOT. Shelves and shelves worth. They have been good customers.... and if it were me, I would be looking at such photos and thinking, "Well, we already have their money anyways".

The whole thing is a farce.

Oh, and another thing I noted from the thread? It's really hard to take seriously people whose argument consists of "You assholes called me names!" and other such potkettles. Basically everything they accuse other people of doing, they do themselves, often in the accusation. Also, on top of that, it seems like they're coopting ideas and language from their opponents. It's weird.

And lastly... I mocked one guy for being a twit, and he told me he did not find me funny.

Somehow, that being the whole point seemed to escape him.

Some days, it's like being in a Monty Python skit.

Standing up

DISCLAIMER: I speak for no one but myself, the pixie folk of the Lost Wilds, the Five And A Half Kings of Ennui, the Dark Riders of the Widdershins Plain, and a wombat. No, not that wombat, the other one. None of them asked me to.

After a small internal debate I thought I'd post this. Mostly the debate was because a good chunk of my Facebook friends, which, as a whole, is most likely a good chunk of my blog readership, will have no idea what I'm talking about unless they've followed where I comment on Facebook. Even then I've not said much on this issue. So.  It is time.

If you don't understand, don't worry about it. Consider yourself fortunate.

Here goes.

I stand by Irene Gallo.

Perhaps I would not have said the same thing as she said it, but it's essentially the same sort of thing I've said. I do not disagree with the essence of it.

There are two right wing groups, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, and they are calling for an end, not to social justice in science fiction, but to what they see as a glut of social justice messages in science fiction.

(Personally, I suspect it's a perspective thing, that they see an overload because there's simply more than previously. It's like rain in a desert... no, wait, let's go SF with this. It's raining on Dune and they're sandworms.)

Are they 'unrepentantly racist, sexist, homophobic'? One or two certainly are. Others have made some statements and comments I see as very dodgy, skirting the lines here and there. Others certainly scoff - and some scoff quite vigorously! - at the concepts and precepts of social justice. And it seems like a number simply don't give a tinker's cuss about social justice and are perfectly happy to let the bad actors keep acting badly. Others are more concerned about not being called racist for being associated with racists, rather than not associating with racists.

Remember, the true evil is not racism, it's calling someone racist. Oh, the horror, the soul-searing, festering wound of being called a, gasp, bigot.

Wherever they fall on that spectrum, they are unrepentant about that.

Some may have expressed misgivings with the darker portion of the overall movement, but it hasn't really led to much self analysis that I've seen. They still cling to what they believe the Puppies stand for.

I envy that self-delusion.

As for the charge of bringing in Gamergate... not going to argue that one. I've certainly seen tweets and post from prominent Puppies that constitute reaching out.

As for the quality of the works on the ballot, that is a matter of opinion. I haven't heard much good, but I haven't read the works myself.

The response from Tor is... not surprising? An attempt at PR and damage control, in the craptastic way that only a corporation can do. Psst, hey, Tor, most of them already hate you for their own bullshit reasons. This doesn't help, but it does undermine Ms Gallo. Well done! Two thumbs up!

And I stand by all of that.

So I stand by Irene Gallo.

Game on.

First little steps

So I tried joining an informal work out class tonight.

I aten't dead.

We'll see how next week goes.

((Yes, for those familiar with Discworld, I did make this blog post just to make that joke.))