![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
being political
SFWA politics, that is. For those of you who aren't members, sorry about this. For those of you who are members, and feel too delicate to wade into such things... it's time to toughen up.
I rarely speak publicly about SFWA. I am a lifetime member, have been a member since 1990 or thereabouts, and have also been a long-term volunteer for the organization, but I mostly stay quiet about my personal opinions therein. I can't, this year.
We have an election coming up. In a nice change of pace, we have two candidates in the ring for President from the very beginning: Russell Davis, SFWA's current Western Regional Director, and Andrew Burt, the current VP.
I know both men personally, over my years in the industry, and I have been following their actions in SFWA carefully for the past few years.
If you've also been following along at home, you already know who to vote for. If you haven't, here's my suggestion: vote for Davis.
Why? John Scalzi has the full rundown here, complete with his own rather scathing [if accurate] personal commentary. But I can give you a capsule explanation:
Russell Davis has put his time in the trenches. He's earned his bread as a writer (novels and short fiction) and as an editor (for a small but advance-paying press), and knows the reality of the industry. His platform is well-thought-out and practical, even if I don't agree with all of it. And, perhaps more to the point, he has the respect of people within and without SFWA; people he will need to accomplish anything in that position.
Andrew Burt has published five stories in the past decade, and one novel. I won't go into the possible disqualification of that novel being technically self-published, because the stories were enough to get him in, but it's worth noting that he seems to treat his writing not as a career, or even a beloved sideline, but as a step toward SFWA office. Is that someone we want leading our organization?
Even if you can overlook that, there's the fact that he has, over his term in SFWA, managed to alienate pretty much everyone who has ever worked with him, and a large number of people who stopped to actually listen to him, including me. Even for a lawyer, that's impressive. His last act as a member of the anti-piracy committee [leaving out any discussion of the right/wrongness of that action] created such a stink [the infamous inaccurate DMCA letter] that he -- rather than stepping aside for the good of the organization, had to be forced aside by the membership. In short, he is arrogant, narrow-viewed, and seems to believe that it doesn't matter what the membership or the outside world thinks, so long as he knows what is right for us.
If he is elected, for the first time in my twenty years as a member, I honestly believe that SFWA will not survive. And despite my gripes and disappointments with the organization, I still believe in it, and what it can accomplish. Allowing Andrew Burt to destroy it from within would be a damned shame, and one that we the membership can prevent. All it takes is that you vote.
note: comments welcome, but keep it civil. This thread I will be moderating, if needed.
I rarely speak publicly about SFWA. I am a lifetime member, have been a member since 1990 or thereabouts, and have also been a long-term volunteer for the organization, but I mostly stay quiet about my personal opinions therein. I can't, this year.
We have an election coming up. In a nice change of pace, we have two candidates in the ring for President from the very beginning: Russell Davis, SFWA's current Western Regional Director, and Andrew Burt, the current VP.
I know both men personally, over my years in the industry, and I have been following their actions in SFWA carefully for the past few years.
If you've also been following along at home, you already know who to vote for. If you haven't, here's my suggestion: vote for Davis.
Why? John Scalzi has the full rundown here, complete with his own rather scathing [if accurate] personal commentary. But I can give you a capsule explanation:
Russell Davis has put his time in the trenches. He's earned his bread as a writer (novels and short fiction) and as an editor (for a small but advance-paying press), and knows the reality of the industry. His platform is well-thought-out and practical, even if I don't agree with all of it. And, perhaps more to the point, he has the respect of people within and without SFWA; people he will need to accomplish anything in that position.
Andrew Burt has published five stories in the past decade, and one novel. I won't go into the possible disqualification of that novel being technically self-published, because the stories were enough to get him in, but it's worth noting that he seems to treat his writing not as a career, or even a beloved sideline, but as a step toward SFWA office. Is that someone we want leading our organization?
Even if you can overlook that, there's the fact that he has, over his term in SFWA, managed to alienate pretty much everyone who has ever worked with him, and a large number of people who stopped to actually listen to him, including me. Even for a lawyer, that's impressive. His last act as a member of the anti-piracy committee [leaving out any discussion of the right/wrongness of that action] created such a stink [the infamous inaccurate DMCA letter] that he -- rather than stepping aside for the good of the organization, had to be forced aside by the membership. In short, he is arrogant, narrow-viewed, and seems to believe that it doesn't matter what the membership or the outside world thinks, so long as he knows what is right for us.
If he is elected, for the first time in my twenty years as a member, I honestly believe that SFWA will not survive. And despite my gripes and disappointments with the organization, I still believe in it, and what it can accomplish. Allowing Andrew Burt to destroy it from within would be a damned shame, and one that we the membership can prevent. All it takes is that you vote.
note: comments welcome, but keep it civil. This thread I will be moderating, if needed.
no subject
I'm merely a short story author but even *I* would probably resign. [Despite the lifetime membership.]
no subject
"Merely?" Pah. Claiming novels weigh more than short stories is accurate only if you're actually talking about poundage, not importance. You're an active, working writer of genre fiction, and that's the only distinction that matters, here.
no subject
You are a short-story author published by other people, not self-published. You have a right to a vote.
Incidentally, "just" a short-story author could be applied to Harlan.
no subject
no subject
There are times, when SFWA is more "fannish" than any fan organization, in terms of letting petty bickering and egos overrun the organization to the detriment of all.
If I were a member, I'd vote for Davis in a heartbeat. SFWA needs to be more professional, and I think he'd help that quite a bit.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Hell, I might join back up just to vote for Davis.
no subject
Alas, I'm only Associate, and they don't let us vote.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, sell a third story and move to Active membership, but this grad school thing is not exactly leaving me with spare brain cells to write fiction. Or spare brain cells, period.*wry grin*)
*points down to Scarlettina's post* Yeah. Um. A lot of what she said.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Except, of course, I never commented on his chances, just on why I think it would be a Very Bad Idea.
As you said, inertia and apathy seem to be the rule rather than the exception. If that carries the day here, despite warnings, then SFWA really does deserve whatever it gets.
no subject
no subject
I think Burt tends to think of the presidency as an entitlement, and lord knows, we've seen what that does to much larger organizations.
I am really sick and tired of people who use the presidency as a resume line item. If anyone else wants to sponsor a motion formidding careerist PhDs from doing so, I'll back it.
And yes, I know the irony of my position. But I'm a divider, not a uniter. I'm not running for anything.
no subject
The prospect of Andrew Burt as president may finally motivate me to pay my membership fee, just so I can vote against him.
no subject
Someone talked me out of running for office on the basis of the fact that she would have to rejoin to vote for me, and she didn't think that would be quite cricket.
(before anyone asks, no. I have no patience with political maneuverings and consensus-building, and would make a lousy officer. I have enough trouble biting my tongue during Persephone steering committee meetings [waves at fellow Persphonistas])
Random observations...
The whole thing makes me a little crazy. Membership in SFWA has networking value as well as other benefits (though these days they seem few and far between), but those things get lost when controversies like this overwhelm the positive aspects of the organization. When such controversies become what the organization is about, there's no point in being organized (which makes me wonder how it's managed to survive as long as it has). Much as I want to be a member (and this may be a habit of wanting more than an actual, practical goal with specific purpose, in which case I must reexamine it), what good does it do me as a writer to join an organization with such a bad reputation? That's a major PR challenge that the new group of officers will have to deal with; Burt's not the guy to do it. Were I able to vote, I'd vote for Davies and Mary Robinette Kowal because, based on their platforms, I believe they could turn the group around.
I'm certainly not the first to wonder if it's time for SFWA to shut its doors and for a new association to be created for writers in the genre. I'm not advocating, just wondering. Sometimes starting a new draft is far more effective than revising an existing work. That, however, would create its own challenges.
In a telling moment this weekend at RadCon, I asked an accomplished, well-established author if she was a SFWA member, and she responded as though I'd asked her if she was a motherf*cker, offended that I'd even consider the possibility. That right there speaks volumes. The group--as an associate member, dare I say "we"?--has work to do.
Re: Random observations...
Damn well should. Never understood why people feel associates have anything less vested in the organization than active members.
I've long wondered if it was too late for SFWA, but didn't want to wade into the "trash it, start again" debate (the requal debate came close to breaking me, as it is). Even if we win this election, there's a long hard road ahead and I'm not sure SFWA can walk it.
no subject
no subject
and..HI SUSAN!!!!!
no subject
We now return you to the scheduled debate.
no subject
I particularly liked the description Scalzi made of Burt's writing career as an affectation.....
no subject
And the phrase "head-shaking arse candle" made me want to send flowers. A thing of beauty, a joy forever...
no subject
I yearly wonder why I re-up both my memberships to SFWA and IAMTW, but I end up re-upping for some reason. If I ever figure out why, I'll be much wealthier, I'm sure.
no subject
Of course, from what I've seen of RWA, they've got even more, er, organisational issues. In a way, I'm pleased I don't qualify.
no subject
I keep wavering on RWA, since I do, technically, qualify. They've done a lot of things right, mainly via the regional chapters, that I wish SFWA could emulate, but they also have a "prepublished" category that makes my teeth hurt...
Author's Guild isn't doing anything for me right now the Freelancer's Guild isn't as well, but I do keep an eye on them. They're the closest thing to a real union we've got, which is both a plus and a minus...
no subject
no subject
I almost left SFWA this past year but changed my mind at the last minute when things started to turn around a bit. I think a lot of younger/newer members wonder what the organization really does for authors other than give out the Nebulas.
no subject
Now I'm going to have to start paying attention to this stuff instead reading for the wankery.
no subject
Don't worry, people do both.
(oh, and I forgot to say -- congratulations!)
no subject
no subject