Tag: someone is wrong on the internet

Categories
someone is wrong on the internet

How to “win” an argument on the internet (without losing your mind)

Let’s get that obvious and ultimately unhelpful piece of advice out of the way. If you’re here and reading this post, you’ve already given in to the siren song of someone being wrong on the internet. But all is not lost. Change happens in you, my friend. Your perspective needs some adjustment for the sake of your own stress levels. So let Uncle Alex share their secret to not getting your life and sanity sucked out of you by randos on the internet.

1. Assume until proven otherwise that the other person is arguing in bad faith.

Most of us are kind people who want to believe the best in others. Deep in our souls, we want to believe that the person on the other end of the keyboard is just ignorant and wanting to be enlightened, or one argument away from understanding your position even if they still disagree, or at the least willing to listen.

Well, put that out of your mind. Place your faith in humanity in a lockbox and stick it in the back of the closet for the duration. In my entire career of arguing with randos on the internet – and I’ve done it a lot, thanks to being someone who was peripherally involved in climate change research among other things – I’ve encountered a grand total of three people who were actually interested in having a good faith discussion. The rest were just, with varying degrees of verisimilitude, pretending in an attempt to waste my time.

If you’re not sure what I mean by “good faith” and “bad faith”:

Arguing in good faith – The other person is approaching this argument with honest intention. They are willing to listen, understand your position, modify their argument if necessary, and maybe (GASP) even change their mind. They are entering into this discussion with, at the very least, the intention of listening.

Arguing in bad faith – The opposite of the above; the intention is basically dishonest or duplicitous. They’re not in it to reach understanding or have their mind changed or even listen to a damn word you’re saying. They just want to waste your time, make you mad, suck out your energy, or all of the above.

This is the foundation you need to start on. This isn’t a call to be rude or insulting out of hand – unless this addresses your ultimate goal, more on that later – but you need approach from word one with the understanding that the other person is not actually interested in having a debate, discussion, or argument. They’re interested in pissing you off. Sure, be open to the possibility that they’re the rare sort of unicorn that does want to have honest intellectual interchange and then you can have a really satisfying conversation – but don’t set yourself up for disappointment.

And what this frees you to do is take a step back from what’s in front of you and address it as a performance rather than an honest communication1.

2. Decide what your goal for the argument is.

And no, it should never be, I’m going to change the other guy’s mind or make them admit they were wrong2. That is, again, setting yourself up for disappointment at best, endless frustration at worst. You need to decide what you want to get out of this discussion, when you will consider yourself satisfied or having “won.”3 Probably the most major cause of troll-induced frustration is that you’re allowing some asshole who doesn’t give a shit about you (or facts in general) to determine what the victory condition for this encounter is – which means it’s going to always be out of your grasp.

Fuck that. You are choosing to engage, at this point. You decide what you want out of this.

Here’s a few sample goals to give you an idea what I mean:

  1. Thoroughly debunk the other person’s bullshit first point, ignoring any goalpost shifting
  2. Provide pushback against extreme bigotry, as otherwise silence can be perceived as agreement
  3. Explain your argument in full for the benefit of anyone watching
  4. Give them enough rope to full expand upon their hypocrisy,lack of understanding, or bigotry
  5. See how long you can counter-troll or insult the other person publicly <— this is not an approach I tend to use except for that time I repeatedly told the anti-trans guy to go fuck himself, but goddamn that was really satisfying

And so on. The point is knowing what you want out of this exchange and pursuing that goal rather than being tricked into playing a game that you cannot possibly win.

And if you don’t have a goal for this particular encounter? If there’s nothing you want out of it? Skip directly to point #5. You don’t owe anyone free access to your time, energy, or expertise. Mute, block, move on.

3. Remember all public argument is performative.

When you’re a scientist choosing to engage with obvious trolls, the question is often why you would want to waste your time like that. The thing you need to keep in mind is that you are never arguing for the sake of changing the mind of the person sea lioning you. You’re arguing for the people who are witnessing this public exchange. And there are a lot of reasons why you might want to do that. Including:

  1. They’re disseminating incorrect facts and there needs to be pushback and debunking for future reference.
  2. They’re espousing hateful, unacceptable views and it needs to be demonstrated that no, their viewpoint is not universally accepted.
  3. They’re acting as if their opinion is fact, and an alternate viewpoint needs to be offered.
  4. It needs to be demonstrated that their blanket statement is proven false by your very existence.

This is a non-exhaustive list. But keep in mind that you are almost never trying to convince the person you’re actually talking to – they approached in bad faith. You are addressing the silent watchers who may actually be listening in good faith. So keep that in your thoughts before your frustration gets the better of you. If you want to really give yourself a pep talk, think about how this asshole that’s started shit with you is maybe doing you a favor, because they’re giving you a chance to reach others.

Also remember: their arguing is just as performative.

4. Do not get distracted.

There’s a thing skeptics call “the Gish Gallop.” It’s named after creationist Duane Gish, who used to derail debates by posing an endless series of questions or counterpoints, to the frustration of scientists. Because the fact of the matter is, when the other guy is a total bullshit artist who doesn’t actually care about facts, they will always be able to throw out more random shit than you can sling back, even if you have the fastest research fingers in the west.

You see Gish Gallop-like moments in a lot of internet arguing; someone poses a lot of questions they obviously have no real interest in having answered, but it’s sure going to waste a lot of your time. Or people will try to distract you by being insulting, by moving the goalposts, by changing the topic.

Keep your eyes on the prize. Remember your goal. And keep going for it.

5. And then walk away.

So then what, after you’ve had your performative argument and reached your goal?

Walk away, because you’ve accomplished what you were after. Feel free to block or mute or otherwise ignore any further attempts to engage. And if that means ye olde randome asshole runs off to their sweaty friends and claims they won because they made you block them? Who the fuck cares.

“Winning” and “losing” are relative, despite what many people seem to believe deep in their souls. You have “won” because you accomplished the goal you set for yourself. The other person declaring victory does not in any way detract from that.

The fact is, you have zero control over someone else’s smugness level. All you can control is the way you choose to address your end of the argument. And when you come down to it, no matter how furiously they masturbate about how they made some SJW mad on the internet, they’re still a sad, pathetic asshole who gets off on being a sad, pathetic asshole. That is not a path you want to go down.

Walk away tall.

Notes:

1 – This is not permission for you to argue in bad faith. Even if you’re taking that mental step sideways and understanding what you’re about to do as a goal-motivated performance, it behooves you to still be honest in your interaction. This is a defense against trolls manipulating you, not permission to engage in the same behavior you’ve come to hate.

2 – “Make the other guy admit he’s wrong” isn’t such a great goal if you’re having a good faith argument either, because it indicates an unwillingness to listen on your part. And I say this about even science issues that I’ve discussed with well-meaning but misguided people who weren’t trolls; my goal wasn’t to beat them into intellectual submission, it was to educate. It may seem like a fine line, but there’s a definite difference between helping someone understand facts and putting them in a corner and trying to make them lose face. Sometimes the greatest victory (in an honest conversation) comes from, “wow, you gave me a lot to think about. Thanks.” Keep that in mind.

3 – The fact that so much gets framed in terms of “winning” and “losing” is not great either, since it precludes compromise and places an arbitrary appearance of “victory” over things like, you know, having actual evidence to back up your claims. That said, I’m using “winning” and “losing” here because most of these bullshit internet arguments effectively are contests with arbitrary rules thanks to being initiated by bad faith actors.

Categories
reference post sarcasm someone is wrong on the internet

Reasons why I will not be replying to your argument

This post has been made for my own later use. Others are welcome to use it as well.

The numbers on the list are for reference rather than ordinal purposes.


To whom it may concern:

Thank you for your interest in my blog post/comment/tweet/facebook post/[insert social media of choice here]. I appreciate that you have taken time out of your day to share your opinion with me. However, I will not be addressing said opinion further or at all in any substantive way (beyond the link I have just shared with you) for one or more of the following reasons:

  1. Something you have said indicates to me that you are not interested in arguing in good faith. That is to say, I have reason to believe you are not interested in an actual discussion in which both sides listen to each other, modify their positions, and come to some form of agreement.
    1. I might have just given your social media profile a brief look and seen slurs indicating racism, misogyny, homophobia, or transphobia, or observed terms such as “libtard,” or other MAGA/MRA/Gamergater/Neo-Nazi flavored language thrown around and thus concluded this really isn’t going to be worth my time.
    2. Same if I notice you run a climate denial website or something similarly disconnected from reality.
  2. You have moved the goal posts at least once.
  3. Something you have said indicates to me that you lack the necessary factual grounding in order to have this argument, and I am completely uninterested in doing the background research for you.
    1. If you are interested in paying me to do the research for you, for example by way of writing an annotated bibliography that you can peruse at your convenience, we can discuss my hourly rates.
  4. You have thus far done such a good job at arguing with straw man conceptions of my words that I’ve come to realize my input is entirely superfluous. Please feel free to continue this argument without me.
    1. See also: the argument you are attempting to have has only the most passing resemblance to the argument in which I’ve been participating.
  5. You have said something so gob-smackingly insulting or downright evil that I don’t want to be on the same planet as you, let alone in some kind of intellectual interchange.
  6. Mommy taught me not to feed the trolls.
  7. I don’t see the point in responding to complete non-sequiturs.
  8. You said something about the First Amendment that indicates you have no actual understanding of the First Amendment; refer back to point number 3.
  9. This argument is two people shouting “Nuh UH!” “Uh HUH!” into the internet for eternity in all but the most literal sense.
  10. I’m annoyed enough that I have completely lost my ability to be either kind or only gently sarcastic.
  11. I have homework to do/I have work to do/I have cats to pet/I have a Fist of Havoc better utilized elsewhere/my pedicure could use some maintenance.
  12. Responding substantively to this argument would give it more intellectual cachet than it deserves.
  13. You immediately misgendered me and I can’t be arsed to deal with you right now.
  14. I’m too mentally or physically tired to want to mount an expedition down this rabbit hole.
  15. I just finished having this exact same argument with someone else and don’t feel like repeating myself, kindly refer to my comments/mentions.
  16. You appear to be attempting your own version of the Gish Gallop, and I have better things to do with my time.
  17. My humanity, my identity, or that of my siblings in struggle is not up for debate. You are simply wrong. The end.
  18. I have a deadline and my agent has a rubber hose.

Please do not take my lack of interest in responding as a sign that you have “won” in any sense but that of water “winning” over a piece of rock by wearing it smooth. My silence is neither agreement nor assent, but rather lack of interest in anything further you might have to say coupled with disinclination to waste energy or breath better spent elsewhere.

I wish you luck in your future endeavors. Have a nice day.

Categories
movie science fiction someone is wrong on the internet

Luke vs Rey, a point-by-point comparison

Since there’s been shit talked about the comparison between Rey and Luke (and how “realistic” Rey is as a character in a universe where there is sound in the vacuum of space and magic exists but okay) I wanted to actually sit down and granularly compare the two characters. Rey’s information comes in after my fourth viewing of The Force Awakens. I filled out the Luke column last night and tonight, while rewatching A New Hope. Note that I suffered through the CGI-ed up version with the incredibly stupid, added Jabba the Hutt scene in there, so you should send me pity donuts.

I decided since Rey’s arc in The Force Awakens basically takes her from zero to dropping her in front of a Jedi Master, who had better be training her in the next film or Luke and I are going to have words, I should pick a similar point for Luke for comparison. That basically gets him through the battle on Hoth (beginning of The Empire Strikes Back), when he goes off to find Yoda and get himself some proper training too.

EDITED TO CORRECT: Apparently time elapsed between Yavin and Hoth is three years? I got pointed toward a better timeline. Damn, Luke. Obi-Wan took his fucking ghostly time telling you where to find a teacher, didn’t he.

This does make my inclusion of Luke’s lightsaber grabbing a little more ehhhh (imagine me wiggling my hand here), though I’m still of the opinion that if it would have been of narrative use in A New Hope, he could have done it just fine. But your milage my vary there and I’m really not looking to argue this particular point.

Of course this contains spoilers for The Force Awakens, gosh. And A New Hope, if you have managed to avoid that for all these years.

Luke Rey
2
 Background Moisture farmer; actually Anakin Skywalker and Queen Amidala’s kid, adopted by a family on Tattooine, a desert planet, for his own protection. He’s a secret prince! Abandoned by her family at 5 years old on Jakku, a desert planet. Became scavenger to survive. Other background as yet unknown.
3
 Age at the start of the adventure 19-ish 19-ish
4
 Major character flaw at start Immature (whiney, unworldly) Unable to move on from past abandonment, a little too fiercely into the self-reliant loner thing
5
 Develops past character flaw? Yes (definitely no longer whiney, goes from unworldly to otherworldly by the time he hits RotJ thanks to a stop at the dramatic cloak store) Yes (stops trying to return to Planet Bumfuck, comes to trust her friends will come through for her thanks to Finn)
6
 Has boobs*** No Yes
7
 Skills going in to film Good at fixing droids and other machines

Good enough pilot to be considering the Imperial Academy; later compares the Death Star trench run to doing a canyon run back home. (Getting the impression that he’s only flown on-planet, but he doesn’t specifically say that.)

 Proficient at fighters and freighters via flight sim; has flown actual freighters on planet only**.

Repaired a wrecked light freighter (Ghtroc Industries 690) and made it space worthy**

Has survived on her own as a scavenger since early childhood, capable of repairing and refurbishing components in order to sell them.
8
 Good with blasters? He can sure bullseye some Womp Rats! Not bad with the Millenium Falcon’s turret guns either. Not at all going in, mediocre coming out
9
 Melee? Manages to wave around the lightsaber immediately without hurting himself or alarming Ben, decent with it by the time he hits Hoth in Empire Strikes Back Expert with staff, basically wields a lightsaber like it’s a half staff
10
 Non-Force skills they show off during the course of the film Talks Han into rescuing Leia like a canny little shit

Swings Leia across a chasm-ish thing in swashbuckling style while being shot at by Stormtroopers

Apparently went to the Han Solo school of door repair

Unveiled as the best X-wing pilot EVAR, hotdogging it all around the Death Star. (Leia later compares Poe Dameron, the “best/most daring pilot of the Resistance,” favorably to Luke**.)

 Does some darn good repair work on the Millenium Falcon, earns Han’s respect

Navigates around Starkiller base very cannily while rescuing herself

Good enough pilot that Chewie doesn’t mind flying with her on the Falcon

Beats up a group of thugs on her own to protect BB-8; manages to get the drop on Finn, who was a squad leader before he left the First Order**
11
 Major in-film mistakes His plan to rescue Leia isn’t exactly A+, though a lot of that can be blamed on the influence of actual human disaster Han Solo Accidentaly releases the Rathtars in Han Solo’s freighter by resetting the wrong fuses. Almost gets Han, Chewie, and Finn killed in the process.

Runs off into the woods and gets captured by Kylo Ren. Finn, Han, and Chewie come rescue her, and Han gets killed by Kylo Ren while there.
12
 Does Han Solo offer them a job? Yep, right before the attack on the Death Star Yep, right before introducing her to Maz
13
 Do they speak droid? Yes. Yes.
14
 Nemesis Sith Lord Darth Vader, who was supposed to be Jedi Jesus before Palpatine got his hooks into him, fully trained and badass for the last twenty years

(Darth Vader blocks multiple blaster bolts with his fucking hands in the Empire Strikes Back)

 Kylo Ren, who has lots of raw power but is not well trained (Snoke says his training isn’t complete, Han implies Snoke isn’t training him properly because he’s just using him), and has temper tantrums because his self control sucks that bad. Also, his lightsaber is literally called “the junk saber” in the script because it’s badly made, unstable shit.

(Kylo Ren stops a blaster bolt mid air)
15
 Do they fight their nemesis? Sort of? Darth Vader chases him down the trench in the Death Star while flying a TIE Fighter. Yes. Toe to toe lightsaber battle.
16
 Advisor Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi, who gives Luke the Force 101 before fucking off into ghosthood; Luke gets like a day worth of lightsaber training while flying on the Millenium Falcon, followed by some noncorporeal coaching Maz Kanata, self-described as someone who isn’t a Jedi but “knows the Force,” who tells Rey she needs to close her eyes and feel the Force
17
 Is their advice useful? Luke trusts in his feelings and blows up the Death Star Rey closes her eyes and feels the Force, then defeats Kylo Ren
18
 Force powers utilized prior to proper training Uses the Force to make the torpedo shot no one else can make and blow up the Death Star right before it destroys the Rebel Base at Yavin, when failure is really not an option.

Doesn’t get his ass killed by Darth Vader, who is in a TIE fighter at the time and chasing him. Presumably partially due to using the Force, since Vader even remarks on strong he is before Han comes swooping in.

Force grabs lightsaber (beginning of Empire Strikes Back); my presumption is he could have done this at the end of A New Hope if the script had called for it. It’s not like Ben trained him how to do this particular trick before getting evaporated by Vader.

 Jedi mind trick on Stormtrooper James Bond to get him to release her from Kylo Ren’s villain chair and leave the cell door open, getting it right on the third try when failure is really not an option.

Stands up to Kylo Ren’s telepathic attack on the second go round, turns the tables on him.

Force grabs Luke’s lightsaber away from Kylo Ren in the most epic scene of the entire movie

Manages to “trust in her feelings” enough to beat Kylo Ren in a lightsaber duel, notably after he’s been shot by Chewbacca and poked in the right arm with a lightsaber by Finn
19
 Blows up the Empire’s/First Order’s giant super weapon? Yep. No, that was accomplished by Poe Dameron, after Han and Chewie blew an X-wing-sized hole in the Scientifish Jargon Generator Housing
20
 Gets a medal? Yep. No, but General Organa hugs her.
21
 Leia hugged Luke too, you know. Sure did! :D Yeah but his was a creepy potential incest hug!

** – Information from the Before the Awakening stories.

*** – This should not actually be relevant, yet somehow is to some people.

In conclusion, Rey and Luke are each shining, precious space babies in their own way. She gets more badass Force tricks and beats the snot out of disgruntled Mini Snape. He gets to single-handedly blow up the most pants-shittingly terrifying megaweapon the galaxy had seen at that point, by using the Force. Please stop undermining Luke’s enormous, medal-earning accomplishment just because Rey has boobs and made Stormtrooper James Bond drop his blaster.

Categories
fandom someone is wrong on the internet

Wish Fulfillment

I already had words about this asinine Mary Sue bullshit yesterday. Charlie Jean Anders wrote a good piece about it at io9 today and mentioned something that was on my mind as I went to bed last night: wish fulfillment.

The “Mary Sue” is a very specific wish-fulfillment fantasy, in other words. It’s about getting to hang out with Harry, Ron and Hermione, and having them admire you. There’s nothing wrong with that kind of fantasy—we’ve all had it, when we get especially invested in a particular universe—but the term acquired a pejorative meaning because people felt it made for bad stories.

I think the thing that made Mary Sue (and Gary Stu, because yes Virginia they do exist) characters so mortally offensive in fandom that they needed their own name was because it was wish fulfillment run completely amok.

These books and shows, practically anything that doesn’t combine classic everyperson-struggles-with-the-greatest-enemy-which-is-themselves drama with scifi and fantasy, are all about wish fulfillment. It’s wish fulfillment that legions of us can participate in by identifying with the hero. And in fact, there are plenty of successful and decent works of fanfiction out there in which original characters aren’t Mary Sues and manage to continue that delightful line of wish fulfillment by welcoming the reading audience in. Original characters in fanfiction are not automatically Mary Sues. This is a battle I had many times in the fanfiction trenches, and I’ll stand by it.

I’d argue that actually, the two problems with the Mary Sue characters (beyond generally shitty writing) that make them so basically offensive are:

  1. The wish being fulfilled is so specific to the writer that no one else is welcomed in.
  2. The needs of the fantasy being played out by the wish fulfillment character act without regard for the canon that fans hold in common and in fact warps the canon in the service of the Mary Sue.

These two factors combine into a reading experience that is nothing short of infuriating, because you’re seeing a canon that you love get twisted out of shape to serve a character with whom no one but the writer can identify.

This is, by the way, why I deny the existence of canon Sues/Stus. You might not like what the writer of the property is doing with the canon, but you’re not the authority on it. They are. Sorry, suck it up and deal. If it pisses you off that much, stop reading or watching. But you don’t get to decide that, say, what JK Rowling wrote isn’t canon because it’s a ship you don’t like. That’s not how it works, cupcake.

So obviously, I’m in the camp that says Rey is a canon character, she cannot possibly even be a Mary Sue, so we don’t even need to discuss this further. Kindly weep into this tea cup so I can drink your tears. But that’s not the point of this post. This is about why so many people are attempting to cover their chapped little asses with a banner that read “But she’s a Mary Sue!”

Rey is a character that does not fulfill their wishes. They don’t identify with her. They don’t understand her. They don’t want to be her. They believe their beloved canon has been twisted in order to serve her character. And they assume that their experience is or should be universal. I imagine this is the feeling behind a lot of female main characters who don’t shit the bed in the third act getting smeared with the dreaded “Mary Sue” label. And to a certain extent, I sympathize, because I’ve sure watched a lot of movies where I thought the male wish fulfillment character was quite terrible.

But this is the thing:

Just because you do not like a character does not mean she is a bad character.

There are more wishes to be fulfilled in the world than yours.

Get the fuck over it.

Categories
rants someone is wrong on the internet writing

Yeah, whatever happened to starving like a *real* artist?

Sameer Rahim, are you fucking kidding me?

I know people rarely get to write their own headlines, so I tried not to just punch my laptop in the screen when I saw this one: Whatever happened to writing for love, not money?

But the article isn’t any better.

I know they have to eat, but when did it all become about the money? The time when writers could live comfortably off their income was an anomaly of the Eighties and Nineties. These days, apart from a few big-money payouts for the next big thing, publishers are going back to being as cautious as they were before. And why shouldn’t they? Everyone else is tightening their belts.

I know you have kids and a mortgage, guys, but why should you expect to be able to make a living off a craft you’ve been perfecting for years? The art should be its own reward! Starving is awesome, it makes you all thin and waif-like and then maybe you’ll get consumption and it’s so romantic.

Call me a romantic but it might actually benefit a writer not to rely on books as their main source of income.

There is nothing in that sentence that I would call romantic. Because there is nothing in the least bit romantic about having to work a shit job to make ends meet while you attempt to write in your rapidly dwindling spare time. There is also nothing in the least bit romantic about working an awesome office day job like I do and then attempting to write in your rapidly dwindling spare time.

I would actually argue that there’s some good to doing a bit of work, volunteer or otherwise, outside your field at all times just because it gives you a chance to meet people and be in new situations and talk to others you wouldn’t necessarily talk to. That’s idea fuel right there. But trying to work two full time jobs is a good way to destroy your health and sanity and never have time to recharge.

Alternatively, I have heard it suggested that, rather as the bankers were bailed out by the, state so authors should be given public subsidies – the perils of which should be obvious. This isn’t China.

Yeah, I know man. Writers and dancers and sculptors won’t stop trying to crash the economy with their irresponsible gambling. (Also, special bonus for gross China reference. A+)

Luckily, the freedom offered by the internet offers a chance to resurrect the idea of writing for love, not money.

The notion was never dead. People have always been writing for love rather than money. The internet just makes distribution easier.

So far online self-publishing has been the preserve of fan fiction and erotica but it can’t be long before high-quality fiction starts to emerge.

Wow. Every time I think you can’t get more insulting, you do. Frankly, there is plenty of fanfic out there that is of publishable quality. And there’s also some damn good erotica out there too.

Right now there is a distressed writer sitting in front of her computer somewhere, worrying not about whether she’ll make enough money to give up the day job or how many copies she will sell, but obsessing over form and language, meaning and truth.

Yeah, and you know what helps the writer hone those skills that go into the art? Having some fucking time to practice them. If you’re working 40+ hours a week (and heaven help you if you have kids) your time to practice the actual craft of writing is severely limited. And then on top of it when more and more often you’re having to act as your own publicist? Eats up even more of that time. And what your readers want are books, regular as clockwork, and those books are damn hard to write and much slower to produce if they are not the main focus of your energy.

So what, people should only get paid for doing work they find hideous and agonizing? The only people who should get paid, then, are perhaps janitors, garbagemen, soldiers, and so on. Not politicians or professional athletes or scientists. Certainly not successful actors or dancers or fashion designers. Or are artists just the exception to the rule because we don’t actually produce something you deem personally worthy? Or is it just writers who are the exception, because we’re not real in our art unless we’re fucking miserable?

(This ignores the fact that being fucking miserable and depressed is not a good way to produce art.)

What bothers me most about this piece, which is so full of bullshit the stench will never leave my keyboard, is the idea that you should be happy not getting paid for work so long as it’s work you enjoy. Work is work. It requires time and energy and a big chunk of the limited lifespan you have on Earth if you want to be any good at it. And this same argument has been used for years to try to justify things like keeping the wages of teachers severely depressed. Yeah, you teach because you love it, right? It’s so irresponsible of you to want to make a decent living. The smiles of children and the glow of a job well done should pay for your housing and the clothing of your own children.

Tell me, Mr. Rahim, did you write this piece for free?

Categories
feminism someone is wrong on the internet

Sibling bonding in the modern age, Or: My brother and I get lost down the MRA rabbit hole together

So yeah, this was a thing that happened on twitter today and kind of ate my afternoon. Mostly because I saw someone saying incredibly stupid shit  about women/feminism to my older brother and like any good little sister, I rolled up my sleeves and waded in. And then it just kind of went down this strange rabbit hole that involves communism and… I just can’t even describe it. It’s sure a thing. Well, I guess at least this gave me a chance to do some real sibling bonding with my brother, as we both marveled again and again at wow would you just get a load of this fuckin’ guy.

I haven’t had that much to say specifically in the wake of the hate crime that went down in Isla Vista yesterday. I haven’t really had anything beyond mute horror, and anger, and sickened disbelief. I’ve been watching the #YesAllWomen tag on twitter but haven’t had anything really to contribute because I’ve lead a really charmed life, to be honest. I’ve been lucky.

And then you find yourself arguing with some random dude on Twitter who is offended–offended!–that everyone is talking about misogyny when there were guys murdered to and that’s totally misandry and therefore… something. (Never mind that functionally, those men were also murdered because of misogyny; if the murderer hadn’t gone on his little hate crime spree they would all still be alive.) And I’m a penis-envying wanna-be man for disagreeing with him.

But I finally do have something to add to #YesAllWomen, because this has reminded me of the every day bullshit I do get exposed to, and I don’t even notice it any more because when you’re swimming in water, how do you know if you’re wet?

#YesAllWomen get told our experiences are invalid, irrational, or not good enough because we’re women.

#YesAllWomen get told that every time something terrible happens to women, we should stop acting like it’s a problem because it happens to men too.

#YesAllWomen get told that our anger is invalid because we don’t start off by praising the “good men” involved first.

#YesAllWoman get told that we’re being oversensitive or we just don’t understand what people mean when yes, we fucking understand harassment when it’s happening to us.

#YesAllWomen get dismissed because we are “snotty bitches” who “hate men” and have “penis envy” and that’s a good enough reason to not listen to us.

#YesAllWomen know that we’re lucky if this is all the bullshit we ever get hit with because it gets so, so very worse from here.

Categories
science fiction sexism someone is wrong on the internet

Dear John C Wright: Please stop lying.

No really, John C. Wright. You flounced, you’re not my problem any more, I don’t have to care about your bullshit misogyny and gross homophobia. I’m done with you. Stop wasting my time.

Only then you go and pull this shit.

I have this problem, you see. Most of the time, when there’s someone saying stupid things on the internet, I can make myself get up and walk away because I seriously have better things to do with my limited number of minutes on this mortal coil. Like read books. And write. And play with my cats.

But when it’s a particular brand of stupid shit on the internet, when it’s someone saying things that should be connected to actual real facts, I. Just. Can’t.

I already had an inkling that Mr. Wright had some problems with the truth after his flounce. But this just confirms it. So let’s play some whack-a-mole, shall we? Please, don’t consider the following comprehensive, exhaustive, or final. I invite you to play your own round of Spot The Bullshit. It’s fun for all ages! Enjoy slogging through his comically overwrought paragraphs! My brainmeats may never recover!

Robert Heinlein could not win a Hugo Award today.

Not calling this out as an untruth necessarily, but because I am so, so fucking sick of this.

First off (at the risk of inviting hordes of flying monkeys to my blog for failing to bow at the feet of the Heinlein) you say that like it’s a bad thing. Second off, he won a Retro Hugo for best novel, for Farmer in the Sky, in 2001. This is not to say that if Farmer in the Sky had been on the actual 2001 Hugo ballot, it would have won. No, I’m pretty sure Harry Potter would have nutpunched poor Bill Lermer and gained the victory without breaking a sweat.

I’m also forced to wonder at the implied assumption that, had Robert Heinlein been born in 1977 (or 1967) instead of 1907, he would be writing the exact same stuff in 2014 that he wrote in 1954 (The Star Beast) or 1964 (Farnham’s Freehold–holy shit, I hope not!). Feels kind of insulting to him that if he’d grown up in a different time he wouldn’t have maybe had some different opinions, but I guess that shouldn’t be surprising coming as it is from someone who has attitudes about gender roles that might have been more at home in the Victorian era.

But that’s a discussion for a different time, a different place, and probably to be had by people who are a lot more personally concerned with Heinlein than I am. Let’s get back on track.

Orson Scott Card publicly expressed the mildest imaginable opposition to having judges overrule popular votes defining marriage in the traditional way. The uproar of hate directed against this innocent and honorable man is vehement and ongoing. An unsuccessful boycott was organized against the movie Ender’s Game, but he was successfully shoved off a project to write for Superman comics.

This is what’s commonly known as a lie. Orson Scott Card has a history of virulent and public homophobia dating back to the early 90s (oh look, Salon has been kind enough to collect a non-exhaustive timeline!) The straw that broke the homosexual’s back, so to speak, was him joining the board for the National Organization for Marriage in 2009–the loathsome organization that worked to pass Proposition 8 in California and then tried to defend it with blatant, pathetic lying in court. His involvement in NOM was specifically cited by the campaign to boycott the Ender’s Game movie, by the way.

Even better, Wright doesn’t even believe this line of shit himself. To quote a comment he posted in his own blog in response to someone pointing out that hey, OSC is in trouble for sticking his hand into the political blender when it comes to same-sex marriage, not for being a Christian:

Hence if Mr Card, a Christian, expresses what Christian should hold, he does and he must express the idea that homosexual acts are sins. When Mr Card is being punished for speaking out against homosex, he is being punished for being a true Christian.

Huh. I thought you said it was just incredibly mild opposition to judicial activism. Not “homosex.” Whatever the fuck that is. But if you read that entire post (I suggest you have an airsickness bag on hand first) it’s painfully obvious that Wright’s concerned about OSC being boycotted and punished for being, gosh, virulently homophobic because their opinions are totally similar, OSC is just so much more mild than him.

(Aside: This quote is from a hilarious thread in which Mr. Wright debates with a commenter whether or not Mormons are Christian and thus deserving of help.)

Mr. Wright, stop lying.

Likewise, Theodore Beale was expelled from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers America (SFWA), our professional union, on the rather specious grounds that he repeated comments from a members-only bulletin board to the general public.

Nope. Beale is an embarrassing (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic) shitstain in the shorts of humanity in general, but what got him finally thrown out of SFWA was using the organization’s official Twitter feed to promote a racist, misogynistic screed. Here’s a post Amal El-Mohtar wrote prior to his expulsion, with screenshots of said screed. I don’t know, something about those professional organizations. They don’t like it when members try to drag them through the racist, sexist shit.

He was libeled with the same typical menu as above. [The “list from above”–ed: You know the selection: racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, insensitivity, fascism.] (By odd coincidence, the falsely accused racist here is also Hispanic.) That the expulsion was done in an irregular and ad hoc fashion casts an additional pall of shame over it.

(Note, I’m guessing the “falsely accused racist here is also Hispanic” is in reference to Larry Correia. I’m leaving the Correia issue alone because I do not know enough about the guy other than the fact that I think he’s an asshole, and still cannot be bothered to slog through the festering cesspit of his blog to investigate.)

Quoted from the screenshot of Beale’s blog post: [For context that should probably be unnecessary, NK Jemisin is African-American.]

Jemisin has it wrong; it is not that I, and others, do not view her as human, (although genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens), it is that we do not view her as being fully civilized for the obvious reason that she is not.

And:

Unlike the white males she excoriates, there is no evidence that a society of NK Jemisins is capable of building an advanced civilization, or even successfully maintaining one without external support.

Yes. Beale is totally not racist at all. [/withering sarcasm] Stop lying.

Back to Wright’s bullshit fest.

Likewise, Elizabeth Moon was “uninvited” from being the guest of honor at a large convention for making the rather unremarkable remark that immigrants to the United States should assimilate.

If you actually care to read the article linked to, you will find that once again that Wright is going for the incredibly dishonest minimization route. Now, maybe it was just the assimilation comment that got Elizabeth Moon uninvited. Or maybe it was this:

I know – I do not dispute – that many Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks, did not approve of them, would have stopped them if they could. I do not dispute that there are moderate, even liberal, Muslims, that many Muslims have all the virtues of civilized persons and are admirable in all those ways. But Muslims fail to recognize how much forbearance they’ve had.

I feel that I personally (and many others) lean over backwards to put up with these things, to let Muslims believe stuff that unfits them for citizenship, on the grounds of their personal freedom. It would be helpful to have them understand what they’re demanding of me and others – how much more they’re asking than giving.

Context matters. Considering that the large convention in question is WisCon (pretty much the most liberal scifi convention that has ever liberaled), I’m more surprised Wright even managed to mention it obliquely without his poor conservative fingers bursting into white-hot flame from the hellish proximity of so many un-shaven she-devil feminists.

Likewise, under the editorial guidance of Jean Rabe, two well-established science fiction writers, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg, in the SFWA house magazine made comments ranging from the complimentary to the utterly innocuous about lady writers and editors breaking into the field. That issue also featured a toothsome sword-wielding Amazon in chain-mail bikini. All three were fired.

Wow, going there are we? The original comments in the Bulletin, however they might have been intended, were not complimentary, nor innocuous. The inflammatory and trollish way Resnick and Malzberg decided to respond (“liberal fascists,” really?) earned just the ire for which it had been aiming. That Wright chooses to describe the chain-mail bikini-wearing warrior woman as “toothsome” honestly just goes to prove every fucking complaint women had about that cover. Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg had a regular column that was discontinued because a large portion of the membership didn’t feel like paying to see ourselves belittled in writing; to my understanding, that’s not the same as firing. Jean Rabe resigned, though I suppose one could argue if she felt pressured, but she was ultimately not fired either.

Stop. Lying.

None accuse Mike Ashley of any evil intent against women. Yet if you look at the Wikipedia entry for this anthology, there is only one quote from a critic, mocking his lack of diversity.

Wikipedia: the best source ever for iron clad proof of the existence of conspiracies.

And then Wright goes of into a giant, frankly masturbatory stroke-fest about his cherished belief that he and people like him are persecuted. Keep reading if you want to feel a sense of creeping, disgusted awkwardness.

It’s a free country. Mr. Wright is entitled to his own opinion that the evil liberal thought police are out to get him, and I really could not give less of a shit if I tried. But just like climate change deniers, evolution deniers, moon landing conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers, and every other flavor of disingenuous nut scrabbling for justification, he is not entitled to his own facts.

Kindly stop wasting my time.

Sashay_Away

Stop lying. Asshole.

(PS: Natalie, IHU SO MUCH RN.)

Related links: 

HERE. If you want to watch someone try to take on the tortured “logic” in Wright’s post–which I noped right out of and went for the low-hanging fruit of completely dishonesty–Foz has taken a stab at it. Foz deserves all the cookies.

Natalie has also opined about Lying Liars Who Lie.

Popelizbet has an absolutely gorgeous takedown of some of the quasi-philosophical bullshit asshattery that the rest of us didn’t want to touch. NO REALLY READ THIS IT’S SO WORTH IT.

Marissa Lingen makes an excellent point about Heinlein that I only touched on here in the lightest possible sense.

From my own blog: The deeply pathetic intimation of violence. Because duels for honor are a thing?

Categories
sfwa someone is wrong on the internet

The Flounce Continues: The Flouncening

Edited significantly on 4/30 at 1238 because I had my opinion forcibly modified downward and am feeling much less charitable now.

I’m not the only one on the “deets or GTFO” wagon. Apparently SFWA already requested evidence as well and Mr. Wright was too much of a “gentleman” to provide it. So again: Deet it or beat it.

Also, apparently Brad Torgersen is letting his SFWA membership lapse. I’m not planning to be the SFWA membership monitoring police (I have a real job and god, I do not even care), but I did want to mention it because of his stated reasons.

Instead of tackling (head on) the job of defending authors’ interests in a publishing industry enduring great change, SFWA contents itself by persecuting individual members for perceived sins of nonconformity, engaging in ideological purity tests (“Your papers . . . they are not in order!”) and impugning the reputations of men (and women) who have devoted their lives to enriching and growing the field.

(Brad, if you ever by chance stumble across this, I would like to say in all sincerity, thank you for acknowledging that whole women existing thing, if parenthetically. And using words like “members” and “officers.” I’m serious; the difference us stark when you put you’re words next to Mr. Wright’s. So thank you.)

And also:

I’ve seen a mentor slandered, attacked, and thrown out of the Bulletin, and I’ve seen my editor straw-manned and maligned by one of SFWA’s darlings and former top officers.

This is my issue. Actually, two of them. And since this was a comment on Mr. Wright’s blog and not a melodramatic letter created for public consumption, I think it’s fair for me to admit I may be overthinking things a little.

First: If you are accusing the organization itself of a campaign of persecution, same rules apply: deets or GTFO. And sorry, you don’t get to use Theodore Beale. History has yet to be rewritten to that extent. If you are accusing SFWA as an organization of impugning the reputations of others, then I sure hope you’ve got some newsletters or publications or official e-mails or something to back that one up.

Second: There is some inconsistency here that has gone beyond bugging me and into I cannot survive if I don’t say something territory.

Mr. Torgersen complains about “I’ve seen my editor straw-manned and maligned by one of SFWA’s darlings and former top officers.” Mr. Wright complained that, “Instead of men who treat each other with professionalism and respect, I find a mob of perpetually outraged gray-haired juveniles.” Which, stop me if I’m wrong, sure sounds like, “people are being mean on the internet.” And maybe I am reading too much into this, but considering it’s being cited as a reason to leave SFWA, there’s a hefty implication of “and SFWA should do something about it.”

Now, if you don’t want to be in an organization in which there are members who think you’re an asshole and don’t mind saying so out loud where other people can see, that’s clearly your right and I’m not going to say that you can’t/shouldn’t leave or mock you for it. There were plenty of people who dropped the org when Beale was a member because he either was after them or they just thought he was fucking disgusting and didn’t want to be associated with him even peripherally. And it can be very not fun to be in an organization when you feel people are hostile toward you, I get that too. Feels bad, man. But that’s kind of how it goes when you get a lot of people with wildly differing opinions who like writing a lot together and have no rules of engagement apart from “If you take a shit on our private property the ban hammer will descend.”

So here’s my problem. It’s the mentions of the bulletin on one hand–PC censorship!–and then on the other complaints that individual members are jackasses. The Bulletin is something SFWA can police, because it belongs to the organization. And not only that, it represents the organization and SFWA has every right to not want something, oh just pulling a totally random example out of thin air here, deeply disrespectful toward women written across its public face since holy shit it’s well past the year y2k and women are people.

SFWA doesn’t police its members when they’re on their own time and in their own spaces, however. That has always been very clear since when I joined at least, and every time there is a hint to the contrary the goddamn sky falls in. Now, I may be of the opinion that certain things should be beyond the pale, eg threats, racism, etc, but I also know there are people who would disagree with me even on that…and I’m not in charge of the org either. And this is the very reason Theodore Beale lasted as long as he did, until he took a warm, racist shit all over the SFWA Twitter feed.

Current SFWA officers have to be very careful and very clear about when they’re speaking in their capacity as officers, but they don’t sign away their right to have personal thoughts when they get elected. (Talk about making a thankless job even more thankless.) Former officers can say whatever the fuck they want. This should go without saying, but regular members can say what the fuck they want on their own time and in their own space. Because you know. Free speech. Remember that? I thought the crowd that’s self-identified as taking a stand against the evil SFWA liberal PC-police was really in to free such. Or is that only for speech they like, and only in the comments section of others?

I wonder if perhaps now Mr. Wright and Mr. Torgersen feel some empathy for the people who were driven from the org by that shit stain in the pants of humanity, Theodore Beale. Because where the fuck were they then, aiming their sad censure at How Unprofessional Some People Are Being?

Pretending to be the adult in the room is a damn sight less believable from someone who has actively tried to make things worse in the past. (Courtesy of Natalie, from this post.)

I’m really, really done with this bullshit.

ETA at 1314, 4/30: 2 things:
1) Brad had responded in the comments with the requested deets, fwiw.
2) To clarify, my mentions of Beale are not directly connected to Brad’s resignation reasoning; I’m aware there he’s talking about Resnick and Weisskopf specifically there. My opinion on Resnick and the Bulletin should already be abundantly clear, so I obviously do not agree with him on that one. I don’t have much of an opinion about the Weisskopf thing because tbh I found her essay kind of incoherent and couldn’t parse get point well enough to form a solid opinion. The Beale thing has more to do with other comments of Brad’s I have read elsewhere. And also I hope makes the point well that it’s not like SFWA members being assholes on the internet is a new thing, and as far as I’m concerned no current assholery even approaches that level.

Edited my above comment at 1457 because I erroneously kept saying Hoyt instead of Weisskopf. I have no excuse for that mistake, mea culpa.

Categories
science fiction sfwa someone is wrong on the internet

It’s okay, John C. Wright, you’re pretty too.

Remember this fucking guy? He has done a public flounce from SFWA now. It’s delightfully pompous as flounces go, and I highly recommend it if you need a dose of evil glee to round out your Monday. (Though I am forced to wonder why someone who seems so enamored of strict gender roles has decided to emulate a stereotypical teenaged girl, albeit one armed with a thesaurus and a King James Bible.) No idea why the flounce occurred today of all days, as SFWA has been nicely quiet for some time.

My best guess is

  1. Mr. Wright is jealous that the other super misogynistic embarrassment to science fiction (you know, Theodore Beale) is getting all the attention and desperately wants the cute girl whose parents gave her a mustang for Christmas the internet to pay attention to him and validate his outrage.
  2. Mr. Wright’s membership is up and he decided to not renew in the most flamboyant way he could find without shelling out the money for a sky writer.
  3. A confluence of luck that made both happen at the same time?

(Dear people who keep trying to blame the syphilitic outbreak on the Hugos on SFWA, get it straight. We give out the Nebulas. Address your complaints to WSFS, and then buy a supporting membership in Loncon 3 so you can vote. Because that’s how the Hugos work. SFWA has nothing to do with it. And I hope Mr. Wright knows that considering he was until today a member of the organization.)

There isn’t really that much to say other than the evil belly laugh for which hairy-legged feminists like myself are renowned, the sound of which causes agony to all good god-fearing men. Well, other than to point out a couple things in his florid love letter to his own ego that he really should be ashamed of typing. You know. If shame is a thing he does.

Instead of enhancing the prestige of the genre, the leadership seems bent on holding us up to the jeers of all fair-minded men by behaving as gossips, whiners, and petty totalitarians, and by supporting a political agenda irrelevant to science fiction.

Sorry dude, if you have a problem with gossips and whiners, you really shouldn’t have typed out that entire letter there and posted it on the internet.

Instead of men who treat each other with professionalism and respect, I find a mob of perpetually outraged gray-haired juveniles.

I really wish you guys would get your internet persecution complexes straight. I thought we were The Young. (DAH DAH DAAAAAAAAAH!) Now we’re gray-haired juveniles? Did we have a terribly dye job accident? Also, the fact that Wright again and again talks about men and completely ignores the fact that there are people of all genders in the org makes me INCREDIBLY glad the door isn’t hitting him on the ass on the way out.

But all of this is honestly just mockery on my part, and really has no meaning beyond me just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Mr. Wright can be upset that women are allowed to speak in public or whatever has his ass in a twist and it really does not matter in the long run. Except for this one right here, and this is where I draw the line:

Instead of receiving aid to my writing career, I find organized attempts to harass my readers and hurt my sales figures.

Does he provide any evidence for this? No. And I will flatly state as a member of SFWA who frequents the message boards, I have not heard word one of even a breath of an idea that could even begin to approach the hint of the shadow of  anything of this nature. Mr. Wright further states in an addendum to the letter that he will not be providing any evidence because he’s totally a professional, and professionals don’t kiss and tell provide evidence for their accusations.

This is bullshit. And is also commonly magical internet speak for “uh oh I don’t actually have any evidence oh shit just pretend to be taking the high road and hope no one notices!” And the more I think about it, the more it just flat fucking pisses me off. It’s all fun and casual taunting games until someone makes an accusation that can actually be supported with evidence.

If this is an actual real thing that has happened, it needs to be stopped. Because going after someone’s readers and harassment is never okay, whether you like the person involved or not. But considering the nature of the rest of the letter, unless he has evidence of this organized harassment of his readers with the intention of hurting his sales figures, Mr. Wright would be far worse than a man in love with his own persecution complex. He would be a liar. The rest of his complaints are the standard differences of opinion, and they are what they are, agree or not. This one is an actual accusation, and as such should be backed up with actual facts if he wants to have any hope of credibility.

Or as we say on the internet: Deets or GTFO.

ETA 4/29: Apparently SFWA requested evidence as well and Mr. Wright was too much of a “gentleman” to provide it.

And Steven Gould, president of SFWA, had a few things to say about these accusations, which includes both his personal opinions and notes on SFWA policy.

And the flounce continues!

Categories
publishing someone is wrong on the internet stoopid

If JK Rowling stopped writing, people would totally buy my books, right?

If JK Rowling Cares About Writing, She Should Stop Doing It

Okay, it’s 7 in the morning and I haven’t even had a cup of tea yet, but someone said a dumb thing on the internet so I can’t even look away. Really, I’d normally just bitch about this on Twitter, but my thoughts are a bit more than 140 characters long so here you go.

Basic  summary of the above blog post: JK Rowling should stop writing because everyone is buying her books instead of mine.

When I told a friend the title of this piece she looked at me in horror and said, “You can’t say that, everyone will just put it down to sour grapes!”

Should have listened to your friend, dude.

I didn’t much mind Rowling when she was Pottering about. I’ve never read a word (or seen a minute) so I can’t comment on whether the books were good, bad or indifferent. I did think it a shame that adults were reading them (rather than just reading them to their children, which is another thing altogether), mainly because there’s so many other books out there that are surely more stimulating for grown-up minds.

I can basically point to the above two sentences as the real problem with Ms. Shepherd’s piece. It basically boils down to, “well it’s okay if she sticks to her stinky genre, but she should get out of mine” crossed with barely concealed disdain that actual grown-ups are reading said stinky genre. Double special bonus fuck you asshole points for never having actually read Harry Potter while still being a patronizing douche about it.

This sort of attitude, I will note, is why plebes like myself often have the general impression that “literary” fiction is a place for pompous assholes. And why genre writers still get to nurse our treasured persecuted artist complex despite the fact that by all measures but for gatekeeper approval, we seem to be winning.

Look, I know it sucks when you’re struggling to make sales. I would sacrifice any number of goats to the Great Old Ones if I thought it’d give me a chance at your numbers on my novellas, Ms. Shepherd. I haven’t even managed to sell a full novel yet, and in my more crapulent moments of despair I can and have gone on ego-comforting rants about how the world is full of philistines that totally don’t get my genius, and what the fuck is wrong with the industry that they’re publishing shit like Twilight when my obviously superior talent is languishing unappreciated.

But this is the thing. I keep the wailing and ineffectual fist-waving limited to whatever audience is in my living room at the time (usually the cats, sometimes Mike, who keeps his headphones firmly on and just sort of nods along and makes vague noises of agreement until I’ve run out of steam) instead of recording it for posterity on a well-trafficked site. Apparently because I have the requisite self-awareness to know, in hindsight, just how pathetic it all sounds.

Four simple points:

  1. The major assumption here, that if people weren’t reading JK Rowling’s books, they would be reading yours or any you personally deem worthy is bullshit.
  2. Frankly, considering the wide range of other leisure activities that people have competing for their time, I maintain forevermore that we should be happy they’re reading at all. And they are reading, you realize. Don’t give me that “kids these days” shit.
  3. As a corollary to #2, if you hook someone in to reading with a piece of really popular fiction (eg: Harry Potter or Twilight) there is a good chance they will give the whole reading thing a go because it was so much fun this time around and try more books. (Whoops, maybe that’s why my stinky genre is doing so well!) For all that I love bitching about Twilight as much as the next feminist with delusions of being a writer, I am still actually glad for its existence because I personally know of people who started reading again because of those books. There are writers out there now who have sales because Stephenie Meyer and JK Rowling turned someone back on to reading. So back the fuck off.
  4. I, too, have had my moments of lamentation about how the masses only want to feast on shit and isn’t it a shame we can’t get real art made these days. (Normally in connection with movies; you try figuring out how to get a film funded when it lacks the requisite explosions and tits.) Well, them’s the breaks because we went with that whole capitalism thing. But it’s also, frankly, the huge commercial successes that even make the game possible for the little guys who might not ever earn out their advances. So many of these big sellers like Harry Potter just come whipping out of left field. No one has a formula for what’s going to catch on, and publishing moves slowly enough that writers are commonly advised to not try to chase what is “hot” because by the time you get it written and in the pipe, the next wave will have hit. Makes me wonder just how many writers have gotten their debut sales because someone was willing to take a chance on them thanks to the massive successes of others.

As someone who wasted money and valuable hours of my life I’ll never get back on The Casual Vacancy, it wouldn’t break my heart at all if JK Rowling went back to writing YA, because I really liked those books. But this is the thing. I know JK Rowling isn’t my bitch. I know you don’t get to tell other writers what to write. Ever.

By all means keep writing for kids, or for your personal pleasure – I would never deny anyone that – but when it comes to the adult market you’ve had your turn.

Christ, what an asshole.