Motivational Monday: What the Hell is Normal Anyway?!

 

[Link] Stepping Into Raymond Chandler’s Shoes Showed Me the Power of Fiction

by Denise Mina

“The Second Murderer” is the first Philip Marlowe book written by a woman. Me.

Marlowe is, of course, the most famous creation of Raymond Chandler, perhaps the most famous of American crime novelists. Reading Chandler was always a guilty pleasure of mine, his vision of 1930s Los Angeles unfolding vividly for me all the way in cold and rainy Glasgow. On the one hand, there is his glorious writing, his blue-collar heroes and the occasional profound observations about the human experience. But there’s also his liberal use of racial slurs, his portrayal of people of color and homosexuals as grotesque caricatures and the fact that his work is suffused with misogyny. It takes a strong stomach to read a story in which a woman needs a slap to calm her down.

Crime fiction was, and is, anti-feminist. That’s why I chose to write it in the first place.

Traditionally, women never had agency in crime fiction, and when I started out I wanted to try to shift the dial, casting in with a movement that already counted such lights as Sara Paretsky, Marcia Talley, Mary Wings and Val McDermid. The way I saw it, crime fiction was the new social novel, wrapped in a genre that already seemed to be reaching a wide audience of largely female readers.

The knock on commercial fiction is that it’s often written so quickly that it tends to simply mirror, for good or ill, the social mores of the time that produced it. Chandler may have been a misogynist, but he definitely lived in misogynist times, and his fiction reflects that. When values change or views become more enlightened, these kind of books tend to age poorly. Sometimes this aging-out happens quite suddenly: How tired the endless copaganda procedurals seem now; how tone-deaf the books that end with the police justifiably shooting a suspect to death. The tsunami of books featuring women with faulty memories cannot be read in the same way since the #MeToo movement or in the context of changing attitudes about sexual violence and child abuse. Overnight, yesterday’s resilient trope seems hopelessly offensive, even dangerous.

Read the full article: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/26/opinion/raymond-chandler-philip-marlowe-denise-mina.html

[Link] Margaret Atwood, The Art of Fiction No. 121

Interviewed by Mary Morris

The manuscript of “Frogless,” a poem that appears in this issue, by Margaret Atwood. Ms. Atwood wrote the poem on an SAS Hotel’s bedside notepad while she was in Gothenburg, Sweden last September for the Nordic Book Fair. “I’ve written quite a lot under those circumstances. Perhaps it’s being in a hotel room or a plane with no ringing phone and no supervision. Also, there’s something about jet lag that breaks down the barriers.”

Margaret Atwood was born in Ottawa, Ontario in 1939. As a child, she lived in the wilderness of northern Quebec and also spent time in Ottawa, Sault Sainte Marie, and Toronto. She was eleven before she attended a full year of school. In high school Atwood began to write poetry inspired by Edgar Allen Poe, and at sixteen she committed herself to a writing career, publishing a collection of poems, Double Persephone, six years later.

Her second book of poetry, The Circle Game, earned her the Governor General’s Award—Canada’s highest literary honor—and from that time forward she has been a dominant figure in Canadian letters. In 1972 Atwood sparked a hot debate when she published a controversial critical study of Canadian literature, Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature. In it she claimed that Canadian literature reflects the submissive as well as survivalist tendencies of the country, born from its being a subordinate ally to the United States, a former colony, and a country with vast stretches of untamed land. Following the publication of this volume, Atwood retreated from Toronto, where she had been working as an editor at the publishing house Anansi, to a farm in Alliston, Ontario, where she began to write full time.

Atwood has published nineteen collections of poetry—including The Circle Game (1964), The Journals of Susanna Moodie (1970), Power Politics (1971), You Are Happy (1974), True Stories (1981) and Interlunar (1984)—but she is best known for her novels, which include Surfacing (1972), Lady Oracle (1976), and Cat’s Eye (1988). Her most widely read novel is The Handmaid’s Tale (1986), a chilling account of a puritanical theocracy that won Atwood a second Governor General’s Award and was recently made into a motion picture. She is also the author of two children’s books, Up in the Tree (1978) and Anna’s Pet (1980) and two collections of short stories, Dancing Girls (1977) and Bluebeard’s Egg (1983). She has edited Oxford anthologies of Canadian verse and Canadian short stories and, with Shannon Ravenel, the 1989 volume of The Best American Short Stories.

The question of the status of women has frequently been an issue in Atwood’s work, and feminists have seized upon her writing as a product of the movement. Atwood has also made other political and philosophical issues themes in her work, such as Canada’s struggle to create an identity and, in recent years, her concern for human rights.

This interview was conducted in a house near Princeton University, where Atwood had gone to give some readings and lectures. In person, Atwood is much as one might expect from reading her work—incisive. For many hours over a period of two days, while teenage boys bounced basketballs and played music outside, people walked in and out, and football games played on the television in the next room, Atwood sat, attentive, answering each question without hesitation. She never strayed from her point, never seemed to tire, and remained, like a narrator from any one of her books, unflappable.

INTERVIEWER: Has the theme of survival always been intrinsic to your work?

MARGARET ATWOOD: I grew up in the north woods of Canada. You had to know certain things about survival. Wilderness survival courses weren’t very formalized when I was growing up, but I was taught certain things about what to do if I got lost in the woods. Things were immediate in that way and therefore quite simple. It was part of my life from the beginning.

Read the full article: https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/2262/the-art-of-fiction-no-121-margaret-atwood

Movie Reviews for Writers: She Makes Comics

 

Some movies tell stories. Some movies teach. Some movies inspire. Some movies really (we're here to) pump you up. And some fortunate flicks manage to do all of that. 

While being a straight-up documentary, She Makes Comics is also the biographic story of the changing role of women in an industry that is largely considered THE home of the adolescent male fantasy trope.

I'll admit I haven't reviewed a lot of documentaries for this series of movies about authors, but so many of them suffer from being so scholarly that they don't really hit the proper cylinders for the mass market viewer. Well, this one overcomes that potential pitfall admirably. In fact, the director, Marisa Stotter, actually addresses than in an online interview with Bleeding Cool: 

"The trouble with a documentary that tries to span a long period of time is avoiding the 'classroom movie syndrome,' where you're throwing a lot of facts at the viewer and little of it has any emotional resonance. So we tried to find the middle ground between demonstrating the breadth of women's involvement in comics and highlighting particular women's stories that we felt were representative of the major milestones of comics history."

The real beauty of this documentary is not that it just has something to say not just about (and for) writers but about (and for) readers as well. In fact, historically, prior to the comics code pretty much reducing comics to a single market -- super heroes -- the readership was about 55 percent female. Quite an accomplishment. Now, that's a time when comics might be anything from westerns to sci-fi to horror to crime to romance to, yes, even superheroes, and women enjoyed them as much as men. The advent of the comics code pretty much wiped out a lot of the non-costumed hero books (either for being unsavory with all that kissing or all those creepy ghoulies and those violent goons with guns), and with them went that high percentage of female readers. 

Of course, that started to change again when a certain young editor, Karen Berger, climbed the ladder at DC and was allowed to start her own imprint, Vertigo Comics, for the company, an imprint renowned for opening its doors for more diverse topics and creators. 

And since then, the market and comics publishing world has continued to change and be a lot more welcoming to female artists and writers and editors. 

All the greats you'd expect are here: Louise Simonson, Trina Robbins, Kelly Sue DeConnick, Gail Simone, Marjorie Liu, Karen Berger, Jenette Jahn, Colleen Doran, Amy Chu, Jill Thompson, Wendy Pin, Nancy Collins, Ramona Fradon, G. Willow Wilson, Ann Nocenti, Felicia Henderson, and more. Their stories are tales of struggle, tales of endurance, and most important, tales of triumph. 

If there's a writer's theme to this film, it's this -- persevere. Stick it out. Chase the dream. Even when -- no, especially when -- the whole world stands against you and tells you it's pointless. 

Without women who chose to live that theme, well, this documentary wouldn't exist, and neither would so, so, so many of the industries favorite titles and characters. 

It works for comic books. And it works for major publishing houses. And it works for mid-size and indie houses too. 

It works for women. But it also works for all disenfranchised writers. Even you guys who can't get a leg up. It's not a gender thing. It's a keep at it thing. Write. Write some more, and then when you feel it's not getting you anywhere, keep at it and write even more. 

She writes comics. But you write what you write. And it'll take perseverance from you too, my friends.

Geek Culture: Leading the Way AND Pulling Us Back?!

Sadly, I think geek culture may be the last hold out for the old "we want our women to look nice in this office" and "he's one of the good ones" and "get back in the closet" white boys' club, since we've had it that way so long in our comics. 

Ironically, geek culture is also helping to lead the way out of that boys' club with its current forward momentum on inclusion and showcasing heroes across racial lines and gender spectrums.

Of course, with every step we take forward there's somebody with a sign saying to stop putting our agenda in their comics. First, getting better as people isn't an agenda, it's a society's goal, last time I checked. Second, those are their comics; they belong to all of us who read and watch the things they inspire, and they've been in the hands of those who would resist growth for far too long.

The latest social media hoohaw about the costume change for Faye Valentine really just drove it all home for me. All the creators of the live-action show did was slightly alter her costume to make it work for a real-live woman who is supposed to be a true ass-kicker. But then some of the anime fans lost their shit because either (a) the costume wasn't just like the animated version (I can see your point, but c'mon, don't these costumes need to work in real life if you do a real-life show with real-life actors?) or (b) the costume didn't portray Faye as the dream fantasy wank material that whiny, horny, entitled fans wanted her to remain (to which I say, please grow up and understand that women, even drawn and animated women, were not put her solely for your eye candy). Though, to be fair, even in the new costume for the live-action show, Daniella Pineda is super sexy.  

Anyone remember the uproar when Wonder Woman got pants and "fans" went nuts because they believed it was their God-given right to see Wonder Woman's butt in bathing suit armor because the world owed it to them... or some equally asinine reason?

How 'bout when the gawky version of the new Wonder Girl created by John Byrne suddenly became "hot" and blossomed into a model -- because, as we all know, superheroines can't be flat-chested. It's a fantasy! They're supposed to be built like fit porn stars. (Right? And so are the men by the same fantasy argument, but ironically, not for the female readers. Instead, because that's how every American, red-blooded male is trained to see himself since birth, well, all the normal ones anyway.) 

I can almost hear -- We are the white, straight men, and we are tired of all you, well, other people who are not white, straight men telling us there are problems with the way we ran the world (and by extension, the entertainment industry). Stop insinuating we were ever doing something wrong. Stop changing things. We want our women to look sexy and appreciate our leering or at least realize that when we stare at their ass or their boobs or their legs, it's really a compliment and they should be thankful we think they are attractive (like they're supposed to be). We want our heroes to be white and musclebound and to have women flock to them in appreciation for being saved. (It matters not that we have now or ever looked like those strapping young shark killers or Nazi smashers on the covers of Men's Adventure magazines.) 

We see ourselves as King Conan with the women who adore us at the feet of our throne. Funny how Conan looks so much like our goal rather than a dark-skinned man. I mean, sure, give him a tan from all that walking from ancient land to ancient land, but not too much. He's not Middle-Eastern or African or from the indigenous peoples of South America. We created an ancient land of whiteness just for him. And if we ever need a person from one of those lands, we'll just "Iron Fist" it or "White Goddess" it and put a Caucasian who was orphaned there and grew to become the tribal hero or village leader or chosen one. 

We are Luke Skywalker atop the triangle with Leia gripping our leg for safety. Can't we have our one last bastion of male power fantasy where white guys still run the world and women love us, and we can be benevolent leaders to our sidekicks and B-players (where all the "good" multicultural characters are supposed to be?

It's like I'm hearing the same message through all the bumper stickers, op-eds, whiny complaints, conversations on social media, or griping over the comic book store counter. 

That message?

"Why are all the major heroes now black or Latinx or gay or women and not being relegated to the sidelines as sidekicks and B-listers like they used to be? Where are all my white guys going? We resent all our white guys suddenly having to take the sideline roles to make way for other folks. And why do the females character have to hate 'real men' so much?"

I haven't done the research on this other than by simply watching TV and movies and reading comics, but I'm pretty sure the truth still is that if you counted heads, the comics and entertainment industry remains predominantly represented by white straight guys in main roles.

In spite of the complaints about women finally getting to lead films without having to be romantic partners, in spite of black actors finally getting to play parts that haven't been traditionally black or characters who "aren't black in the source material," in spite of LGBTQIA+ roles no longer having to be the token gay for comedic distraction or over-the-top flameliness, in spite of all that, the bulk of the entertainment world hasn't really changed. Count the characters and do the math. 

But it's Captain American! But it's Superman! But it's... !

They're not supposed to be at the top of the triangle. 

There's the rub. Don't take our icons. Our white straight icons. Go create your own. These are my toys. 

No, they're not your toys. They never have been. And so what if we finally have a black Superman or a trans Flash or a black Captain America or a female Captain Marvel or a Muslim Ms. Marvel or a bisexual Robin. Do the math. The straight, white guys are still way ahead and still by and large write all the checks. 

But that never stops folks from arguing that they're having an agenda "shoved down" their throats. But to be fair, that sounds like a story I've heard before... 

Back in the days of emancipation, white landowners didn't want the anti-slavery agenda shoved down their throats. 

Back in the days of Irish immigration, citizens didn't want the "Irish are citizens too" agenda shoved down their throats (and they were white too!) 

Back in the days of suffrage, men didn't want the women's voting agenda shoved down their throats. 

Back in the days of desegregation, whites didn't want the black agenda shoved down their throats. 

Back in the days of equal rights for women, men didn't want the feminist agenda shoved down their throats. 

And now, folks are quick to jump on the train that they are having the LGBTQIA+ agenda shoved down their throats. 

They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. 

And they never stop to think about the years of having white, straight, patriarchal culture shoved down the throats of others. As if one is "normal" and the other is "other than normal" and needn't be presented as such. But there's another word for that -- default. For far too many, the default culture is the one of the white straight patriarchy and it's perfectly fine to have your little "representation" as long as it doesn't intrude on the "normal" or the default culture. 

You see, the thing is that by "agenda being shoved down our throats," what they mean is "we don't want to have to acknowledge your right to representation" and "we don't want to see you showing up on our shows and in our comics" and "we don't want to actually have to see you as people IF it forces us to confront nasty realities we'd rather avoid."

But here's the real, five-dollar deal for you. 

If you have a virtual highlighter you might just want to put this in yellow. 

Ready? 

Just having greater representation in the publishing and entertainment world isn't trying to shove an agenda. It isn't. It's trying to make us a better people, better citizens, more welcoming and loving individuals. It's trying to make our published entertainment look more like the world outside our doors and give all people someone with whom they can identify in the entertainment they see. It's trying to help all people of any race, nationality, gender, spectrum, feel like they belong in America (and by extension, existence). It's trying to help all people feel they matter and are important. 

And if you still want to call that an agenda rather than progress up the scale of what it means to be a better human, then I really feel sorry for you. 

[link] Fandom, Entitlement and the Alt-Right

Well… no evil except casual racism and misogyny, but still….

by Jim MacQuarrie

As a kid, my favorite superheroes were the Flash and Green Lantern. The Flash, because his real power wasn’t super-speed; his speed was a tool he used, but his real power was that he was smart – he outsmarted his opponents. He knew more about scientific principles than they did and he applied his knowledge in clever and creative ways to solve problems that he couldn’t outrun. As a puny little kid who read too much and knew too much random stuff, that resonated with me.

My other favorite, Green Lantern, worked on two levels (three if you count the fantastic art by Gil Kane). First, he had a ring that was functionally magic; if he could think of it, the ring could do it. Second, and more importantly, the ring ran on willpower. He had to bring resolve to the fight, to dig in and hold on and never give up, because if he didn’t, the ring would fail. He kept that willpower up through something completely unique to comics: his daily oath. When he charged up his ring by pressing it to its power battery, he would recite the pledge I quoted at the top. Some writers suggested that he said it as a way of timing the process; the length of time it took to recite the oath was how long it took to charge the ring for another 24 hours. But he could just as easily have sung “I’m a Little Teapot” if it was just about timing. It’s so much more than that.

As I said, the Green Lantern Oath is unique in comics. Superman had a mission statement (“fighting a never-ending battle for Truth, Justice and the American Way”); Spider-Man had an aphorism (“with great power must also come great responsibility”); Batman had a promise (“I swear by the spirits of my parents to avenge their deaths by spending the rest of my life warring on all criminals”); and Captain America had several thick volumes of inspiring speeches on the nature of freedom and the responsibility to defend it. But only Green Lantern had an ongoing, present-tense pledge that he recited daily.

When my son was a Boy Scout, I found that the Scout Oath and Law were the best thing anyone ever gave a parent. Suddenly I had a checklist of ideals and standards that he promised to uphold, principles he publicly raised his hand and swore to every Monday night, and I held him to them. “A Scout is clean,” I’d say while pointing at a mess he’d made. “A Scout is helpful,” “a Scout is courteous,” and so on, and I believe the reminders about who he was and what he’d promised to become helped to make him the good, kind and decent man he is today.

Read the full article: https://atomicjunkshop.com/fandom-entitlement-and-the-alt-right/

My Diversity Soapbox (Or Don't You Throw That "Woke" Shade at Me)

One of the things that bugs me as a writer who aims for diversity in my work is that in the eyes of a lot of folks, any attempt to be diverse and inclusive somehow gets automatically declared as woke or virtue signaling. 

Now to be fair, some are. But not all of it. And not most of it. In fact, among the stuff worth reading or watching, very little of it. 

It's just that there's a predisposition of some people to see anything diverse and intentionally so as woke or virtue signaling so they can then immediately dismiss it as lesser work.

But... They're Trying To Push an Agenda 

To be fair, there are times when people ARE pushing a belief and "agenda-ize" their work, but geez-Louise do I feel like the lady doth protest too much. It's not every one. Hell, it's not even most of them. But they get lumped together by "anti-wokes" all the time. To quote rocker Steve Taylor, "Good, bad, there they go down the same drain."

There are lots of great socially conscious stories with great writing that have at their hearts BOTH strong storytelling and an intentionally socially conscious (or diversity-driven) story. Look no further than the drug issues of classic Spider-Man for some of the best examples of this. Or the race issues of Green Lantern and Green Arrow. Or the new Far Sector comic. Or... well, you get the picture.

The antithesis of that is the trouble that comes when certain groups push back so hard against any progressivism in comics as though "the good ol' days" own those characters and stories outright and modern ideals only serve to turn them into damaged goods. As if "good comics" and progressive ideals don't mix. 

Nowhere does it say that any comics, let alone super hero books, are supposed to only include white, middle-class, straight couples with 2.5 white, straight kids. Nor shouldn't favorite characters change it up from time to time and be replaced with various races or genders. Change has been the single constant in the comics I've read since my childhood, well, at least for the characters who weren't the trademarked faces of the companies. Seems like those are more untouchable (and not in the Elliot Ness sense of the word). 

As most of my favorite heroes are C-listers and below, trust me, they are changed all the time. The designs. The people in the costumes. Their races. Their genders. Their powers and backstories. Why not broaden that to include A- and B-listers as fair game. 

And even then, with DC's multiverse, why not have a black Superman or a trans Batman or a have Nubia take Wonder Woman's spot on the Justice League? Why not? "Because that's not my Superman or Wonder Woman, and you can't take those away from us fans, damn it! You can't push your agenda on me." 

The Way They Used To Be

To be fair, DC and Marvel have tried this from time to time, and often with awful backlash from "fans" who immediately scream about how much they dislike the change. Some manage to stick (like, at least for now, Ms. Marvel and lesbian Harley and Ivy) and some run the scope of a long story arc (Jane Foster female Thor and Falcon-Cap, which was as natural a progression as Dick to Batman, in my opinion). Others are quickly shot down by fans as pandering and disappear from the racks with little to no fanfare. 

It's that "friendly fire" of "I like my comics the way they used to be."

Oh, so you mean the Golden Age? I agree. We should completely reject Hal Jordan and Barry Allen and all the changes that arrived with the Silver Age. 

"No, no. Those changes are okay. Those are the changes that were made for us and we like those heroes." 

Well, if those Silver Age changes were put into place to reflect a more modern sensibility than the 1940s and 1950s, shouldn't we update again to reflect the change in culture and society from the 1960s to the 2020s? Why not a new "Silver" Age change to recreate a new DC Universe in a modern light? What about the changes that need to be made for other generations, more inclusive generations?

"Oh, no. Those characters are established now. We can't mess with them. We updated their backstories and their technology and their timelines instead to keep them fresh. If you want to recreate something beyond that you'll have to just create new characters instead." 

I'm starting to believe Janus or Harvey Dent might be behind this little double standard.

Dropping Some Comic Shop Truth

But maybe it really is about characters and not an aversion to real, modern-cultural change for comics... Sadly, my experience as a comic book shop manager tells me otherwise.

These are actual questions asked/statements said to me when I managed a comic book shop by actual, real, living people:

"Why do they have to put their gays in my comics? They're just comic books." 

Because LGBTQ+ people are part of the real world and they like to see themselves in the pages of entertainment and on TV and movies just like the rest of us.

"They should stop trying to push an agenda on me, man." 

As if having diverse characters, particularly in leading roles, is about pushing an agenda and not just inclusion of all those folks who exist in reality. 

So, what's there to do? Sadly, it's an uphill climb, and I'll tell you why. 

It's because of little hypocritical tendencies like these: 

"I don't mind comic characters that are POC or are LGBTQ+ as long as they don't change my favorite characters. They should just create new characters instead." 

On the surface, that's a safe statement, right? Maybe, if it stood alone in a vacuum. 

If you ever make that first statement and don't support books with new characters, then I won't say that makes you a hypocrite, but it does create a concern to be questioned. It's kind of like saying: "I just want my old favorite characters and if SOMEBODY ELSE wants to support inclusion in comics, well, that's okay, but not at the expense of my favorite key characters who I won't allow to be taken from the spotlight to make room for new characters of diversity, whether by changing them or by sidelining them." 

But unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. The questions continue to indict the asker. 

"Why did they have to make (insert a favorite character) black, gay, etc.?"

"Why are they publishing that book? That's not the (insert favorite team), not the real one. I don't know hardly any of those new characters."

"If people really wanted diversity, they would have bought (insert inclusive character whose solo book died from lack of support), wouldn't they?

That's when the true colors come bleeding out, it seems. 

So, from a long-term fan standpoint, from that perspective, it seems it would be wrong to change or replace characters (either directly as in the new LSH book or N52 Wally West or by new legacy character as with Ms. Marvel).

But apparently, it's also wrong to sideline the favorites to allow for an influx of new characters on a team book that has a better chance of surviving than creating a new character as a solo book lead. 

That seems a bit like wanting to play both sides to relegate diversity to the sidelines, where new books go to die, and then you also get to the last question mentioned above: "See, fans don't really want diversity. That's why those new books don't sell well." 

I only bring all this up because you'd be surprised how often I heard all of those statements when I was managing a comic book store. It's the ultimate "have your cake and eat it too" against diversity in comics. 

They Wouldn't Make Luke Cage White, Would They?

There's a huge difference between being portrayed as white and whiteness being critical to a character's story.

For example, Hal Jordan's whiteness is a factor in his Hard-Traveling Heroes era and he would need to be a white man if that story were told in a film. Maybe Ollie too, as the "outsider" who sees what's going on beneath the radar. But I can't recall, for example, Supergirl's or Deadshot's whiteness ever being intrinsic to her or his story. It's always seemed to me just the "coat of paint" she was created with. And that's what the difference is for me.

That's my beef with the whole "Well, they wouldn't make Luke Cage white" strawman argument. Luke's story is based on his blackness. Changing it would be more than a repaint of the character. Same goes for Black Panther, Black Lightning. 

And that argument doesn't even hold up because we white folks have our ways (thank you, Langston Hughes) of doing that already. Remember black face? Remember white folks playing black folks in movies and being "painted" because they couldn't have white and black actors actually share a scene with each other? 

When a character's race is important to the story or to the character's values or self, then I say don't mess with it or do so only with the greatest respect when adapting the base story. But when it's only important to fans who have read the book and only care about "that particular visual representation" then I'm okay with the changes. 

Ask yourself this: "Is this character important to the history of comics or the history of a particular culture? Is this character or team important to the history of publishing comics or the history of a particular culture? Sometimes they're both. Is Captain America more important to comics history or to white history? Is Luke Cage more important to comics history or black history, or is he important to both because of his culture and race? (For the record, if you say Captain America is more important to white history, then you might be drinking the wrong Kool-Aid. He's important to American history, but America isn't just blonde and white.)

See, there's a huge difference between characters' importance to a race or culture and their importance to the history of publishing alone. If you can't see that difference honestly, you're probably just reacting with straw man arguments because you don't want to sound like a racist. (But guess what... you failed.)

The same argument goes for gender and sexual identity, in my book. "If you would make Alan Scott or Iceman gay, what about if you made Midnighter and Apollo straight?" If you can honestly ask that question you really, really don't understand the idea of representation in art and entertainment. When a group is already underrepresented in media, taking any of the examples away is a step back, not forward. If you want to ask that question and do it with any degree of seriousness, ask it when there is equal representation to serve as a starting point. Until then, we've got a long way to go. 

Who Woke My Inclusion?

What I'm REALLY tired of is the way "woke" and "virtue signaling" are thrown around almost every time someone ventures to be inclusive in their work. I remember when including people was just "inclusion" or "diversity" and they were noble endeavors to pursue, not "wokeness" or "virtue signaling" and suddenly by changing the words they became bad things to do. 

Being inclusive is part of who I am as a writer and a human being, and it's not something I do to try to look like I'm morally superior to anyone. It comes naturally to me as a human being. (Okay, I know that sounds "woke" but bear with me. lol) 

It's something I worked hard at changing about myself to become a better human being from the time I learned about my non-inclusive tendencies in high school and college. 

I don't do it to signal anything about anyone (unless I signal that "hey, I like to a fun story with all kinds of people in it"). I have to do that in a way that's true to the story and the characters and the setting. But if I can do that, then why should folks balk at inclusion as the next intentional piece of that story make-up? 

I firmly believe that folks who react to every little instance of inclusivity or diversity in entertainment with judgments of virtue signaling or wokeness, well, I believe that says a lot more about the one who protests the work rather than the one who created it.

Perhaps instead of looking at it as if comics publishers, etc., are suddenly trying to be "woke" and "pushy" by publishing "all these" ethnic and LGBTQ+ books and characters, maybe the truth is that the environment has opened up to the point that formerly disenfranchised creators are finally able to publish the books they've been dreaming of for years -- or progressive creators finally getting to tell the stories that support their beliefs and LGBTQ+ allies rather than suppress those beliefs.

Okay, my soapbox is beginning to groan under the weight of my frustration here, so I'll step down. Be excellent to each other and party on, dudes!

Questions from a Brave and Stupid Man to a Panel of Women Writers #3: Men (Mis)Writing Women

NOTE: This post features adult language.

Being a white man, I willingly acknowledge I have blind spots, things that while they don't register to me like they perhaps should are things well worth my time and thought and important for me to know and understand in order to a member of a community of diverse writers.

That said, I've assembled an all-female panel of writers to be my teachers.

This is #3 in a series of articles. The first can be found here, and the second here. 

Today's discussion is this: 

Are there things you find often when men write female leads that drive you crazy? What are they, and how can male writers fix those issues?

       

Emily Leverett

(Most) Women ALWAYS (always, I mean always, no matter what) take serious inventory of their current location--that is, where are the exits? Is this well lit? Are there people around? How fast do I need to walk somewhere, etc. In bars, on the street, anywhere. Women often refuse to stay in motels where the doors open to the outside. Also, as per the Men Write Women Twitter account, women's breasts do not have a mind, emotional set, or physical capacity to move of their own.

And I don't randomly think about my boobs AT ALL unless they are either hurting or as I am dressing and even then only in passing. I don't dwell upon my long soft hair as I twist it up and clip it.

I am thinking "Is today a two cups of coffee day or am I good with one?"

We do frequently have a laundry list of things in our head, planning out day, mental notes for errands, checklist of things done to leave house. (Of course the fewer responsibilities one has the shorter that list)

Women are just as likely as men to be logical and pragmatic, or emotional and impulsive.

Corrina Lawson

They don't write a specific personality. When some male writers create men, they create a specific person, yes? When they create a woman, they create the same type over and over. (See Greg Rucka, frex.) Women are as varied as men, they have all kinds of different interests, body types, and personalities.

Also, women approach a date/encounter with unknown men with the same wary attitude that men approach a possible fistfight. 

I wanted to add even when they write well-drawn and complicated women, men tend to make them also fuckable. Not every woman in your story needs to be fuckable. Put older women in. Make them interesting too.

Ellie Raine

I’ve noticed men writing “strong female characters” as if they have zero flaws and are just amazingly awesome at literally everything without any struggle whatsoever as if they’re robots...

Sometimes they even come off as male character personalities but in a skin that men want to see, so it’s still men writing for men.

Just as often, though, I also see men writing only about an OPPRESSED WOMAN archetype who doesn’t have any actual personality other than being oppressed and being angry about it 24/7 in their sleep, in the shower, on the toilet, in the car, in the morning, etc. Literally, it’s like some authors think they’re not even allowed to give those characters a favorite color or a favorite beverage, because someone must have told them they’re not allowed to write about women unless their entire being and existence is only relevant to how much they’re oppressed... like, for sure, we HAVE and STILL ARE oppressed on too many god damn levels, and while I get angry about that bs a lot when it comes up, I’m still a damn human who thinks and does other things ASIDE from that.

Our purpose in life is not BEING OPPRESSED. Our personalities are not BEING OPPRESSED. Our goals are not BEING OPPRESSED.

Oppression is a viable and accurate OBSTACLE. I personally don’t want it to define who I am as a human being. I decide for myself who I am, as should all characters regardless of gender, sexuality, race, and belief. They. Are. PEOPLE.

        

Ruth de Jauregui

Women are complicated. 

A tough woman working in a man's world can also be caring and sensitive, but she might keep it out of sight of the world. Give us those little moments where we can see that she cares, that a memory is painful. Oh, and we have aches and pains -- it's not all sweetness and light...

Oh, and real women don't have breasts shaped like melons -- especially after kids. Hips spread, knees and back hurt, no more high heels.

Anna Rose

Women being one-note characters constantly in need of “saving”.

Fuck that shit.

My characters of all genders tend far more to fighting back than being passive.

Cynthia Ward

Women should have agency (so avoid female characters who are absolutely, utterly, totally helpless in body, mind, spirit, and imagination. As you would with male characters).

Skip making them damsels in distress. This doesn't mean they cannot need or receive help from a man (or a woman, or a group). What it means is that helplessness and victimhood are not their story function, any more than they are a male character's story function.

(It may be worth noting that Edgar Rice Burroughs, who died in 1950, rarely created females who were damsels in distress. Arguably, he didn't at all, because Jane gained a lot of competence and independence in later books.)

Don't have the women be there for the male lead, or for male characters in general. This is rather subtle and difficult to root out, I suspect. But it's a big part of the reason why I've joked that most fiction is fan-service for men. In the Travis McGee books I've read, excellent as they are, this is definitely the role of women. However much I like them, the women are there to have sex with McGee, comfort him, give him an excuse to demonstrate competence in and/or out of bed, etc.

Along these lines, do you only have one female character in the story or novel? It can make sense in some cases (she's the only character or there are only two characters, or you are recognizing multiple genders in a small cast). But it can often be avoided.

Remember not all women and girls are cisgender.

As a cis woman, I'll note that I don't pay nearly as much attention to my breasts, genitals, or (when I had them) periods as some male writers think.

Cis women also tend not to think about penii nearly as much as many cis men think.

       

Lucy Blue

I’m also very very tired of female characters who prove their worth as action heroes by hating all things stereotypically feminine, whether it’s dating men or nail polish. If I have to read how one more female protagonist has no time to wear makeup or doesn’t realize how beautiful she is or never bothers with a bra for her perky double D boobs (pro tip—double D boobs can be many things but perky ain’t one of them without the assistance of engineering), I’m going to vomit. And why can’t she be susceptible to flirting or romantic commitment without being perceived as weak or silly?

Nikki Nelson-Hicks

Off the top of my head, the thing that always makes me most angry is when a female character is merely there to prop up the male character. She's there to be pretty, to make him feel better, to show him the meaning of life. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope is the first thing that comes to mind. (The Bechdel Test also comes to mind. I often use it when I'm watching a movie. BTW, Hamilton completely fails the Bechdel test.) I mean, look at the first Star Wars movie, New Hope. We're supposed to feel so sorry for Luke losing Ben Kenobi, a man he's known for a few days, when Leia has not only endured torture by Empire needle bots, she's lost her entire planet! And who gets comforted? Yeah. That's pretty messed up. If you want to make a character interesting, worry about their humanity. Their goals. Their ambitions. My genitalia has very little to do with my ambitions or personal goals. I like a character that could be gender swapped and not a bit of the character's motivations be lost.

Alexandra Christian

Men often have a tendency to be obsessed with describing women strictly in terms of their physical appearance. I proofed a book where the guy referenced a woman's "shapely legs" 4 times on one page. There also seem to be two kinds of women: sex pots that every man on Earth wants to sleep with or a heinously unattractive bitch.

    

Krystal Rollins

Women writers treat their manuscript like their best friend. She can put it down for a while, come right back to it, and pick up her conversation just where she left off.

Sarah Lucy Beach

I was recently editing something and the female main character was described in one sentence as a "big chunk of a woman." I thought "chunk" a bit heavy handed, but it could mean tall, strong, Junoesque. But then a couple of sentences later, she is also described as "beautiful and sexy," with no other description to it. The other character in the scene is an older woman, a counselor. So the "beautiful and sexy" was totally irrelevant. Sexy to whom? How? Why does it matter if she's sexy or not, especially in such a scene.

Just calling a woman "sexy" doesn't make her so. It's laziness on the part of the male writer. Dude, if you cannot describe why she's turning you on, just drop it. She ain't sexy. But if it's the way her lips turn up, or the long slender column of her neck, or her graceful hands fluttering about, lightly caressing the surface of the table.... Anyway, SHOW us in her behavior (movement, voice, that sort of thing) what makes her attractive, don't just flat out TELL the reader, because that is FLAT.

Mandi M. Lynch

If you want a good female character, think about what makes a good male character. When we hear about male characters we hear about professional accomplishments, we hear about what they do and who they are, we don't hear about sexy rugged shoulders and the bulge in their pants. When a male character achieve something it isn't because he's blond and skinny and pretty with an upturned nose, it's because of how he got there. We don't hear about how their clothes pulled tight in certain spots. And we don't hear about them and association with other people unless there is an important reason for that.

Also, in general I am tired of hearing about strong assertive females being b***** or ugly or sturdy or whatever stupid word you have for the day. There's a strong woman in power somewhere, and she's either a nice princess or screwed her way to the top, or we get a woman that basically is manly and just can't accept her position in life. And that's not how it really is.

 

Susan H. Roddey

My biggest hang-up is when more stock is put on the woman's physical appearance than her abilities. I don't like seeing women treated as hypersexualized eye-candy. She needs to have better motivation than some dude's ass-kicking warrior chick fantasy.

I completely understand that if a male character is seeing the woman for the first time then yeah, he'll likely take stock of her physical appearance and that's fine. Just don't overdo it. Let him appreciate what he sees and move on before it becomes comical and offensive. We don't need to know exactly how the fabric of her dress hangs off her hips or what the outline of her nipples looks like through her top.

Amanda Niehaus-Hard

All of the above and be aware too that women are angry and we live with that anger 24/7.

Women have certain societal expectations put on them to be the care-takers or "mothers." Women are expected to be the peace-makers. Women are expected to respond passively to the violence in the world and in their communities. This weighs on you and affects you from childhood into adulthood. And it's infuriating.

Be aware that your character has a back story of fury over these expectations, over being dismissed, ignored, mansplained, not believed, etc. Be aware that her back story also includes anxiety over being raised to believe she was "asking for" any violence done to her by wearing the wrong clothes or not being vigilant enough in a parking garage. Be aware that she has been sexualized since she was a child, and that her current "worth" in society is based on how closely she still resembles a teenager -- so her confidence in her own sexuality and her own self-worth is constantly under attack by her anxieties.

Be aware that we are intimately acquainted with microaggressions because we've been told since preschool that we need to shrug them off.

Be aware that sometimes our own religious faith fails us, neglecting to protect us or failing to give us support in times of crisis.

Be aware of our history in our culture. We know what year we were finally allowed to have bank accounts without a husband co-owning the account. Do you?

Be aware that we can't ask for help without being called weak, or having that request used against us, as a symptom of our "hysteria."

No matter what your position on birth control, sterilization, or abortion, be aware that we STILL don't have agency over our own health and our own contraception -- and what little control we have is constantly under threat.

My point is not that men don't live with anger or unrealistic societal expectations. Of course they do. But you're aware of yours. Be aware of ours.

Want to write a woman as a villain? She doesn't need to have been raped. She doesn't need to have had her child murdered. She doesn't need to have Stockholm Syndrome. She really just needs to be a woman.

Jen Mulvihill

Oh, my, where to begin, there are so many but let's just talk about the simplest one. Woman do not always sit around and gossip about each other or ogle good looking guys and make sexist remarks about them. We actually do have intelligent and in depth conversations about life, the universe, and everything. I would recommend that you sit and listen to women's conversations before assuming what we talk about and what we care about. Also, also, not all women/girls run screaming when they see something scary or are attacked. Personally my first instinct is to find a weapon, and always double tap, don't hit them once and think they are out cold or dead. A smart woman always makes sure. I find it inspiring to talk to people and ask questions about their gender or even their race or religion. Most people are not offended by this because they rather see a writer get it right then get upset about it being wrong. I think readers appreciate it when you take the time to do proper research especially when it comes to characters written by the opposite sex.

[Link] Who Gave You the Right to Tell That Story?

Ten authors on the most divisive question in fiction, and the times they wrote outside their own identities.

By Lila Shapiro

A few years ago, a writer named Ashima Saigal from Grand Rapids, Michigan, witnessed an incident on a bus in which a group of black kids were mistreated by the police. She was disturbed, and soon after, she wrote about it. Later, reading over what she’d written, she realized the story wasn’t working. She’d tried to write from one of the kid’s perspectives, but Saigal, who is Indian-American, wasn’t sure that she had the skill or knowledge to write from the point of view of a black child. She decided to sign up for an online creative writing course called “Writing the Other.”

The course was founded by the speculative-fiction writers Nisi Shawl, who is black, and Cynthia Ward, who is white, nearly twenty years ago. They’d met a decade or so earlier, at a fantasy and science-fiction workshop, and were inspired to design their own writing class after a conversation with another classmate, a white friend who’d declared that she’d never write a character who didn’t share her background or identity because she’d be sure to get it wrong. “My immediate thought was, ‘well that’s taking the easy way out!’” recalled Shawl. While imagining the lives of people who are different from you is virtually a prerequisite of most successful fiction writing, the consequences of doing it poorly have grown more serious since the pre-Twitter, pre-woke ’90s, as the conversation about who gets to tell whose stories has moved from the fringes of publishing into the mainstream. J.K. Rowling, Lionel Shriver, and Kathryn Stockett have all caught heat for botching the job. In the young-adult fiction world, a number of books have been pulled in advance of their releases for clichéd and problematic portrayals of minorities. The conversation is often depicted in the media as a binary: On one side are those who argue that only writers from marginalized backgrounds should tell stories about people who share their cultural histories — a course correction for an industry that is overwhelmingly white — while on the other are those who say this wish amounts to censorship.

Read the full article: https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/who-gave-you-the-right-to-tell-that-story.html

[Link] Bombshells and Bae: Sexism in Afrofuturism

by Balogun Ojetade

I love reading and writing Afrofuturistic and Afroretroistic stories – particularly science fiction, fantasy and horror featuring larger than life heroes and sheroes and eye-popping action. I really do. But I am growing increasingly disgusted by the sexism within a lot of it. I can no longer read books in which people of color and women are constantly oppressed and seen as lesser beings in a world based on fantasy and science fiction – even if WE are the authors of it.

Lately – as the father of seven daughters who are all avid readers of Afrofuturism and Afroretroism – I have become particularly disgusted with the continuing sexism in the writing and in the visual art.

Writers, you can create a world with any rules you choose. In your world, you don’t have to continue to perpetuate the sexist tropes so prevalent in Fantasy and Science Fiction since its inception.

Are you that lacking in creativity that you cannot write something better? Are you that apathetic to the plight of our Sisters? Or have you convinced yourself you have to maintain some sexist status quo to sell?

Bruh. Do better.

Certain tropes have been formed and propagated. Given the overwhelming number of novels set in a sort of idealized, white, medieval Europe; given the grossly oversimplified and homogenized concept of medieval gender roles, stereotypes and sexist archetypes have arisen in Fantasy and Science Fiction and Black male writers are giving us the same old trite bullshit. Some examples of these played out, tired tropes are...

Read the full article:http://greydogtales.com/blog/women-speculative-fiction-men-write/

Questions from a Brave and Stupid Man to a Panel of Women Writers #1: Because Asking Honest Questions Is the Best Starting Point, I Was Told

Being a white man, I willingly acknowledge I have blind spots, things that while they don't register to me like they perhaps should are things well worth my time and thought and important for me to know and understand in order to a member of a community of diverse writers.

That said, I've assembled an all-female panel of writers to be my teachers.

This is #1 in a series of articles. The second can be found here, and the third here. 

Today's discussion is this: 

Are there issues in the writing and publishing community common to women that aren't typically experienced by men? What are they, and are they merely irksome or downright systemic?

Alexandra Christian

Alexandra Christian: I think all us chick genre writers have experienced the “girls can’t write horror/sci-fi/fantasy/pulp.” Or “girl’s put too much kissy stuff” are “too emotional.”

Lisa Matthews Collins: I could go on ad nauseam about that topic. :/

Alexandra Christian: And I like kissy stuff (obviously) but good stories don’t have to be devoid of relationships (kissy stuff).

Elizabeth Donald: Oh my god yes this. Nowhere was it more obvious than when I switched from writing vampire thrillers - which were dismissed condescendingly as "vamporn" - to writing zombie action-horror. "That's kind of a guy thing," I was told, and while they were half-kidding, in almost every case I was the sole woman on the zombie panel if I could get on the panel at all. The stereotypes of What Women Write and What Men Write persist.

Lucy Blue: I will never understand why a dude, reader or writer, who is perfectly enthusiastic about a detailed description of the bare-handed evisceration of a toddler by a monster, alien, or zombie gets entirely skeeved out by an even remotely realistic love scene. I can see it now, a new trend in splatterpunk - 'this one is REALLY scary - they talk about their FEELINGS!!' ;)

Elizabeth Donald: I've been to cons. I know sffh fans like sex. :) And yet when I did my first Dragoncon, I was with my then-publisher Ellora's Cave handing out cover cards at my booth for my first novel, an erotic vampire thriller about a serial killer tearing out throats near a vampire-run sex club. A man looked at the description on the back of the cover card, looked at me and said, "The only difference between this stuff and Penthouse Forum is the words, 'I never thought this would happen to me.'" Then he walked about five feet away and threw my cover card on the ground, in my full view. I wanted to yell after him, "That shit cost me money, asshole." Or possibly do something antisocial to him. I did neither, because I was mellower then. :)

Stephanie Osborn: I've had that happen a few times. My response is generally, "I try to write realistic characters with realistic relationships. Are you in a long-term relationship?"

(if yes) "Then you get what I mean."
(if no) "Do you WANT to be in one? Then you get what I mean."

Lisa Matthews Collins

Lisa Matthews Collins: I have had this experience twice...told that I needed to go write another genre because as a girl I didn't know enough science and math to write hard science fiction. Both times by 50+ year-old white men.


Elizabeth Donald: Sara Harvey can talk about being on a panel with a male author who opined that women can't write science fiction. He said it outright; I've been on panels where they obfuscated it behind vocabulary: "The language of science fiction is different than the language of romance, they don't blend well."

Stephanie Osborn: I do occasionally encounter people who don't know my background who try to explain the science to me. Until they find out what I used to do. [Editor's note: Stephanie is actually a rocket scientist.] Then they tend to disappear pretty soon quick.

Anna Grace Carpenter: Male characters are seen as the default, so men writing male characters is part of the norm, but when women focus on female characters (or things perceived to be female "interests") it's shunted into niche categories. (I had a dude at a convention back in January try to convince me that I could not possibly have written my books for him because the narrator was a woman, therefore it must be a book for women, not men.) Because men are the default, when a male author writes "outside his lane" so to speak, whether it's writing female characters or in a "woman's genre" it's usually regarded and brave and insightful, while women writing in genres perceived as "men's genres" are chasing trends or playing the gender card or whatever the current phrase is to indicate that women don't really belong in that space. Also, men can write characters that are either completely perfect or so very ordinary they shouldn't succeed in saving the world, and they won't be labeled as "wish-fullfilment" or "self-insertion" but women writing characters that are competent and skilled are frequently damned by accusations of "Mary Sue" characters.

While it would be nice to think these things are really just annoyances, they directly impact access to reviewers (or rather, how many female authors are reviewed each year), general exposure for their work, and ultimately sales numbers. (Let's not forget that a survey of top-market book reviews a couple of years ago revealed that dead male authors still received more critical attention than living female authors.)

Elizabeth Donald

Elizabeth Donald: There's another aspect of that "male character is the default" that I think is going to take at least another generation to work out. The initial experience of the reader is one of identification, of compassion in the original sense, the ability to identify with the main character and empathize with his or her plight. For the vast majority of English-language literature, male characters were the default, as written by male writers. Women grew up reading those stories, and learned to identify with male protagonists and their sideline girlfriends as well. We learned how to relate to a character different from us, because we didn't have much of a choice. I didn't grow up with Buffy or Katniss; I had Nancy Drew, who kept needing to be saved.

Men didn't have the same identification experience, because most of what they read had Someone Like Them at the center of the story. They didn't have to stretch to identify with a female protagonist written by a woman, because that didn't exist all that much. Without that practice as a young person, without learning that empathy and identification with someone Other, their experiences in fiction were different than ours - and I leave it to others to say how much that affected them in real life as well.

Sadly, we're continuing this today. We still have children's movies aimed at girls or boys, separate toy sections where girls are expected to buy girl dolls and boys "action figures." We see children's entertainment retitled because we think boys won't see a movie with a girl as the main character, defying the entire history of Disney. :) There are parents beginning to read stories about girls to their boy children (vice versa has never been a problem), and I think that will make a big difference going forward.

Anna Grace Carpenter: I cried the first time I read "Dealing with Dragons" by Patricia Wrede because it was the first time I'd found a book that really seemed to feature a character I understood at a gut level. (And there are a lot of other "YA" books from my childhood that I love, but there was something deep in finding a character who reacted like I did, who had similar goals. Something I think a lot of men never have to contend with because so much of fiction is about male experiences.)

Lucy Blue

Lucy Blue: If you're a woman, the assumption is ALWAYS that you write "women's fiction," and "women's fiction" is always assumed to either be romance, True-Story/Lifetime-style trauma fiction (usually with a romantic element), or menopausal tales of triumph (usually with an erotic element). But you know who leaps to that conclusion fastest and makes the biggest stink-face about it? Other women writers in horror, science fiction, fantasy, and pulp--not all, of course, but some. I don't know whether they're so bruised and battered from running that gauntlet themselves that it's made them brutal or they feel like they had to go through it so damn it every other woman should have to go through it, too, or that they want to make sure that the other boys in their genre know they ain't no stupid girly-girl--I suspect it's a little bit of all of these, depending on the woman writer in question. And just like with writers of color, female writers are continually being asked by male writers in traditionally dude-centric genres how to write women better. Sometimes it's a genuinely respectful and heartfelt question posed so that the male writer in question can make the female characters in the stories he already writes better--this panel being a shining example. But sometimes it's a dude writer wanting to cash in on what he thinks is that sweet, sweet romance-infused market of chick readers by writing one more urban fantasy novel with a female heroine with her big boobs barely contained in her dirty tank top on the cover. He wants to be able to say when some other woman accuses him of writing a male fantasy of female empowerment, "that's not possible! I asked three different women what women are like!"

Elizabeth Donald: I have no studies to back it up, but when I began, nearly all my acceptances were from female editors and rejections from male editors. This began to change, however, when I got out ini the con circuit and made contacts among male editors and publishers. They got to know me, and my work, and then they came to me with opportunities or were open to my pitches. It's worth noting that "exposure" at cons is often at the whim of con organizers, so if a con is not particularly 'woke,' you'll find all women on the midnight sex panel and "why are vampires so hot?" and all men on "how to kill a zombie: gun or sword?" I know which panel I'd rather be on, but it's taken some doing.

For the record, those male editors have been almost all delights to work with, and I'd consider them all fairly open-minded, cosmopolitan folk. So I don't know how much of it is simply "we publish the people we know" (which is its own problem), and how much is, "A woman wrote zombies? Is it a romance?"

Ellie Raine: There have been a LOT of times when I tell someone I've written a book, they automatically assume it's romance. Even if I say it's fantasy, they think "fantasy romance". I've gotten into an argument with one man who insisted that women writers always use too much "emotions" compared to male writers, even though William Shakespeare, Edgar Allen Poe, Nikolas Sparks, Brandon Sanderson, James Patterson, George RR Martin, Neal Gaiman, and just about EVERY popular/GOOD author focuses on the character's emotions (which is pretty damn crucial to good story telling) and includes either a romance line or (in Martin's case) more sex scenes than 50 shades of Grey.

Stephanie Osborn

Regarding more industry culture, I've stopped going to formal writing conferences as much because I was tired of showing up for workshops just to have random guys initiate conversations to give me unsolicited advice about how to finish my first novel (even though I had three finished, but they didn't bother asking me first), how to get a publisher to notice you (which I'd already done, but they didn't bother asking), and how to find a man who would stay with me for a long time and eventually marry (even though I was already married and was wearing a wedding ring) and--the kicker--how to navigate high school (even though I was well into my twenties, but they didn't bother asking). It was weird how MANY men(usually into their 40s and up, and--for some reason--all wrote Literary and kept telling you how much better It was compared to fantasy and that I should switch to that if I REALLY wanted to improve my writing) gave the exact same theme of advice, and all of them assumed they knew my age, my relationship status, and my writing level without asking a damn thing. Fan Conventions are WAY better than conferences with this, no one has ever assumed they knew anything about me there and even the people who wrote literary there are chill and engaging. Basically, my experience with formal conference culture is that a LOT of people are there to make themselves feel better about how they've been going to these things for decades yet still haven't gotten a book deal with a publisher (all the men in question informed me they weren't published yet or even self published when I asked them). I don't know, I expect people to have actually gone through the publishing experience either trad or self before they feel free to offer advice on it without anyone asking them in the first place.

Lisa Matthews Collins: I was told I needed to go back to writing female lead POVs in my stories because who would want to read a male protagonist written by a girl?!

Elizabeth Donald: Oh lord... my husband writes horror romance, I write action SF and dark horror. Everyone assumes it's the other way around. He writes romantic happy endings; my books end in funerals.

Lisa Matthews Collins: This is an old thing that is still an issue... being judged by your name...not on any merit of storytelling expertise. I took a gamble on writing science fiction and pulp under my name Lisa M. Collins and not going with the safer route of L.M. Collins. Sadly, it took me awhile to make the decision to go with my name because Lisa is a girl's name.

Lucy Blue: And it's a double-edged sword. If you use your real, apparently feminine name, you get pre-judged. If you use your initials or a more apparently gender-neutral pseudonym, then when people find out you're a woman, you cheated.

Nikki Nelson-Hicks: It's the presumption that, because I have a vagina, I must write "girly horror." That I can't get deep and dirty with it. Once, at a writers' critique group, I submitted a piece and this guy kept saying, "You wrote this? YOU did. YOU?" Yeah, fucker. Me. I really never understand this idea that women can't GET horror. Sweetie, our lives are a horror show. We are a walking chemistry experiment that can explode at any moment. Body horror was MADE for us.

Anna Grace Carpenter

Anna Grace Carpenter: I had an editor tell me I really knew how to write action sequences to the point that he was "recommending them to folks I meet". (And, sure, he meant it as a compliment. But it's not the first time I've heard similar and there is *always* an undertone of "You do this really well for a girl.")

Elizabeth Donald:  I got that one once from an editor. "You write action a lot better than I expected." Thanks? 

I got a lot of criticism for my first zombie book, in which my protagonist is a former Marine paramilitary zombie fighter heading a group of ne'er-do-wells fighting paranormal threats. The criticism? "She swears too much." She's a goddamn fucking Marine zombie fighter, is she supposed to say "oh phooey, they're chewing his face off"? And each time I heard it - every single one from a man - I had to breathe deep and NOT say, "If she was played by Jason Statham and directed by Quentin Tarantino, you wouldn't blink at her use of the word 'fuck.'"

Lucy Blue: Oh yeah, I've heard the "she's not ladylike enough!" comment from everybody from my mom to editors to reviewers on Amazon.

Amanda Niehaus-Hard: My experience is different, but I write under different names, in different genres and categories, and for different age-range audiences, so I've seen prejudice of all sorts, but haven't specifically been a target.

I found it interesting to read Ellie's comments, because my personal experience has been pretty much 180 degrees the other way from hers, as I mostly go to book festivals and writers conferences now (as opposed to conventions) and I've felt MORE accepted at those festivals -- but that's of course only my own experience. I really want to respond to some of what she posted because I think there's a LOT of problems in the conference (and convention) culture that is part of why I think they’re failing financially.

Ellie wrote: “Basically, my experience with formal conference culture is that a LOT of people are there to make themselves feel better about how they've been going to these things for decades yet still haven't gotten a book deal with a publisher.”

Ellie Raine

I don’t get into discussions with people like that any more, but I’ve seen them, and I notice the same ones show up for the same conferences every year, and when they workshop, they workshop the SAME DAMN STORY they’ve been workshopping for a decade! This is an issue that conference organizers need to be aware of and need to do something about. The way workshops usually go is first to pay, first on the list, and they REALLY need to be juried or something, if only to keep the approximate “skill level” the same, so all participants are at the same level and are getting (and expect) the same level of critical attention. If you’re a multiple award-winning novelist, you shouldn’t be in a workshop group with short story writers who are just breaking into the paying quarterlies. If you just started writing last week, you shouldn’t be in a workshop with people who are already selling work and looking at crafting a story collection.

Most general conferences, with the exception of the popular fiction conferences like those done by Writers Digest, are focused around literary fiction, so that whole “literary is superior” canard is ever-present. I honestly think SOME of that bias is starting to fade, as so-called literary authors are experimenting with non-realistic fiction, or fantasy/SF situations. The bigger writing programs are turning out more authors who experiment with non-traditional situations, so when the Iowa grads from 2010 to now start getting the high profile university jobs, I suspect we’ll see a shift away from dismissing genre (or they’ll just claim they do it better.) But either way, I see the snark becoming more about the work itself and less about the shelf category.

Nikki Nelson-Hicks

Ellie wrote: “I don't know, I expect people to have actually gone through the publishing experience either traditional or self before they feel free to offer advice on it without anyone asking them in the first place.”

This is essentially why I stopped going to fan conventions except for a select few that I just attend for fun. I’ve been going to conventions since the mid 1980s, when the scene was COMPLETELY different, and cons were both fun AND a way to get into the business of publishing. The panels were either professionally oriented (how to get an agent with people who had actual agents, or science topics with actual scientists) or they were fan-run and fun, discussing stuff like the sociology of Star Trek.

What I’ve seen of conventions lately is a lot of non-experts talking over actual experts (as in people who actually work as scientists for NASA) or people with no experience in “traditional” publishing sitting on panels about agent queries just so they can advertise their books. (I'm certainly not against self-publishing, as I've self-pubbed some educational materials, but that doesn't make me an expert on the industry.)

It’s only in the self-publishing and micro-press arena that I’ve EVER taken any slack over being female and writing horror, SF, thrillers, romance, YA, lit fic, whatever. My experience with so-called “traditional” publishers (and writers who are published that way) has been nothing but stellar and professional. (Again this is just my experience, and I’m sure it doesn’t echo everyone’s experience.) I could have just gotten lucky and surrounded myself with amazing people, but I can say I’ve never been harassed, dismissed, not taken seriously, or had any real negative experience with anybody in the professional horror community, the SF community, the thriller writers, and the pulp writers community. Pulp writers have embraced me and supported me, and people like Phil Athans and Sean and Tommy and the gang over at Pro Se have been incredibly supportive and encouraging. I have no idea what’s said behind my back, but to my face everyone has been professional and respectful.

The small-press horror community is two-sided. One the one side I’ve had wonderful experiences with people and presses whose work I read and enjoy. I have been treated like gold by my small press publishers and those who publish my friends and whose work I read regularly. On the other side are, frankly, people who can’t write well, and throw together anthologies just to publish their own work. Some of those people have been dismissive of me, but I don’t read their work and I dismiss them as well, so it’s even. The only group I’ve seen overt hostility from is a Bizarro press that I will NEVER buy from again and won’t recommend or review any of their work, let alone submit to them.

Amanda Niehaus-Hard

I haven’t had the same issues as other women in genre – probably because I’ve listened to a lot of their stories and avoided the people and groups they’ve warned others about. Cons nowadays take harassment seriously, because women in genre have demanded they do, so I’ve benefited from that and haven’t experienced harassment as a guest or an attendee. I appreciate that it’s people like you, Sean, who have helped create a more supportive and inclusive environment for women in genre fiction and in fandom, by keeping the conversation going.

Ellie Raine: I'm 100 percent behind the jurying idea for workshops. We don't have freshman undergrads mixed in the same advanced classes as grad students (unless certain exceptions apply), so this solution makes way more sense.

==============================

Editor's Note: The panel includes women of various races/sexuality. The authors above were the ones able to respond by the deadline for this discussion.