Not enough facepalm in the world

[annathepiper]

Jesus jumping Christ on a pogo stick, this again?

I just read Foz Meadows’ post over here responding to Paul Cook’s piece at Amazing Stories about “When Science Fiction Isn’t Science Fiction”. Foz has several quotes from the piece in question, and, SPOILER ALERT: apparently, according to Mr. Cook, SF isn’t SF when it’s written by women. Because they’re writing about girly things that only women with their girly brains would be interested in, and that people like Lois McMaster Bujold are writing thinly disguised romance novels, not “real SF”.

Lois. McMaster. Bujold. Let that sink in for a minute, you guys.

Also, he has a side helping of going all ranty mcrantypants about steampunk, especially when steampunk involves zombies, so apparently Cherie Priest isn’t writing real SF either.

And I’m not sure what makes me go WHAT IS THIS I DON’T EVEN more: that he’s got it in his pointy little head that only women are interested in reading about things like balls, gossiping in corridors, palace intrigues, and the like; that presumably, by contrast, he must therefore also believe that women aren’t interested in reading about rocketships or whatever ground he feels that “real SF” actually breaks; or that he pulls in comparisons to Alexandre Dumas. Comma, the guy who wrote The Three Musketeers, which last I checked was chock full of swashbuckly manly action and palace intrigue, so I can’t even figure out where the hell he was going with this.

(I don’t even know where the hell I’d fall in this guy’s perception of readership, either. I am a female reader who gives exactly zero fucks about fancy shoes or fancy purses in my personal life. I’m way more interested in spending my money on computers and musical instruments. I also generally give zero fucks about sex scenes, but I do like reading about a love story. I’ve got some hard SF on my shelves, too. None of which would make a damn bit of difference, I think, since I am after all still a girl.)

And don’t even get me started on the digs against the entire romance genre. I’ve expressed my deep frustration before with SF readers snarking on romance (and how a LOT of it is driven by sexism). A whole HELL of a lot of other writers have continued to express their frustration over this as the year continues, including this excellent post by Ann Aguirre, asking exactly what the hell is wrong with having sex in SF, anyway?

I saw James Nicoll link up to this a couple days ago too, and only paid passing attention at the time. I kind of wish I’d continued to pay passing attention. But on the other hand, women in SF/F don’t really have the luxury of not paying attention to this.

We have to keep talking about it until it stops.

ETA: Link roundup for other people’s commentary!

J.B. Whelan has a great skewering of this entire concept, written by his wife Stephanie, quoted in full over here. BWAHAHAHAHA.

Chris Meadows points and laughs.

Cora Buhlert facepalms right along with the rest of us.

Steven Brust pretty much makes the o.O face over here.

Mirrored from angelahighland.com.

Comments

[marzipan-pig.livejournal.com]

This kind of thing is why I never really bonded w/sf/f when I was a kid, which is really too bad. I mean I found a lot of cool stuff anyway and made the friends I have, and still, Not For Me came through. At least now people are fighting back and in 10-20 years or so I'd like to think stuff like this will just be a blip on the radar of awesome.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

On the plus side, you might consider his list of writers to complain about as 'list of people I want to read if I haven't already started to' (I do recommend the Lee/Miller Liaden books btw) (The Lee and Miller series have women piloting spaceships)

[annathepiper]

It IS a bit convenient to have the list of people I'd clearly want to read organized like that, though really, I can find all these people without his help. ;)

[jedishampoo.livejournal.com]

Well, it's nothing I've not heard before about Bujold, though it's unfortunate to hear it again.

I always called Bujold's stuff "character-driven" sci-fi as opposed to "science-driven" sci-fi, and it's difficult for me to deny that the interpersonal elements are what attracted me to her stories in the first place. Yeah, so I like romance and always have -- but a big part of that is examination of interpersonal relations and journeys. I'd rather have the technology be there to serve the story, rather than BE the story.

But seriously, according to these guys, does that mean that people in space should never have sex? In the future, they don't talk to each other or what? They just worry about science and fighting all day, every day?

I dunno. If he doesn't like it, fine, but I'm glad someone's writing it, and just because something isn't HIS brand of science fiction, doesn't mean it's not science fiction. :)

[annathepiper]

It's just highly indicative of the shit that women in SF/F have been getting all this time, and it's been particularly virulent and obvious this year. Either that, or more women in SF/F are complaining about it. Probably both.

Ann Aguirre's post is asking the very question you are here, i.e., are these guys assuming that people in space should never have sex? Ultimately though what it says to me is the bigger societal picture of "only wimmens are supposed to care about goopy feels" expressing itself here.

[framlingem.livejournal.com]

Characters in stories are people. Falling in love is a thing that happens to people.

I'll grant it's not my own personal interest in my entertainment, but I also do not enjoy tomatoes, and nobody thinks they are a lesser vegefruit.

[annathepiper]

Good answer. :)

[prettyshrub.livejournal.com]

I've read SF by male authors that have relationship stuff in them. Actual people have relationships. If you want realistic characters, some of them will have relationships.

This misogyny stuff breaks my brain.

[annathepiper]

Yes, exactly.