Balancing the Books (and Magazines)

Writers are philosophical creatures. We contemplate the meaning of Existence, and try to explicate the mysteries of Life through our Art. We know that although we do not possess the One Truth, we do possess the ability to articulate bits of Truth in a way others cannot. This explains our exalted position throughout history and why we are so well regarded (and compensated) today.

Okay, what writers really are is good liars. But the part of about philosophy is true, too, to some extent in every project. And sometimes it’s not in the project, but in the presentation.

It’s no secret that publishers and editors are people, and people have principles and ideas. Not everyone’s ideas and principles agree, and this applies to writers and the editors and publishers they sell to.

There have been some famous examples of this, the most recent being the Sad Puppies boycotting Tor. (Yes, they started the boycott for a specific reason, but they hated Tor’s editors already.) That’s not my point. I have sold stories to editors and publishers on both sides of the Great American Political Divide, mostly in cases where I didn’t know the “relevant” politics until later. In most cases, though, I still have no clue what politics or causes my editors and publishers espouse. The same applies to writers, although I do read some authors whose politics I know I disagree with.

What to do when I know ahead of time that a publisher holds beliefs I don’t hold? Ah, there’s the rub. I guess it’s just a matter of “what” and “how much.” What position does the publisher take? And how militant is the position? For me, it’s about the fiction. Obviously publishers and editors have their tastes. Aesthetic tastes dictate the magazine’s content. Do political tastes influence the market as well, and am I lending an implicit endorsement by publishing there?

If yes (and I disagree with their position), I’ll stay away. So far that doesn’t appear to have happened. And so far (to my knowledge) every time there has been a disagreement it’s been a matter of conflicting principles. I can write from differing viewpoints, and I like to think I can handle other people’s. If it’s a principled stand, I can handle it. If you’re using it to spew hate, that’s different.

I don’t believe in avoiding an author because I don’t like his politics. I don’t believe in blacklisting a market because I don’t agree with the publisher’s politics. And if I’ve sold a story, it’s a contract I will honor even if I find out something later I don’t agree with. With the way the internet works, however, it’s getting harder not to know ahead of time.

There are only so many markets in the world. It’s a balancing act. You have to be philosophical.

#SFWApro

Read Full Post »

Drawing a Line in the Sand

If you’ve had a lot of time on your hands lately, you may have been following the Tor boycott, originated by the Sad Puppies, who once said boycotts were bad, but now apparently they’re okay if undertaken for the right reason, i.e., a reason one supports. (I bought a Tor book a few days ago by an author I’d never heard of just because it was a Tor book.) The oddest thing, perhaps, about the Tor boycott is that at least one of the SPs is a Tor writer who goes to great lengths to say he’s “not supporting the boycott” in a way that shows he totally is, except he doesn’t want to hurt his own bottom line. Which is fine, everyone gets that, but you really ought just to admit it and shut up.

Still, it reminds me of the famous uproar over Orson Scott Card and his Ender’s Game movie. I don’t agree with OSC about gay rights, but I sold a story to him that he published last year. Because hey, money is money, and as long as his magazine doesn’t reflect views I find abhorrent, I’ve got no problem with us making money together. It’s not the first time I was published by right-wingers. I’m an equal opportunity writer: I’ve been published by pagans, too. I’m not going to go out and give every editor and publisher a litmus test. I’d run out of markets.

On the other hand, there was a furor a few years ago about a story in Weird Tales that people complained was racist. I read some of it; it was pretty insensitive, to say the least, but it was also awfully written. I had a sub in at WT at the time, but I eventually withdrew it because I didn’t want to be linked with a magazine that would publish that particular story. Because of the content or the craft? Both, really. But that time it was the magazine that offended me, not the publisher.

I’m seeing, though, that other people (unsurprisingly) have different views. I’ve seen writers admit they won’t sub to certain markets because of the political views of the publishers/editors. This is their right, of course, and I respect their integrity. But I’m also secretly glad that there’s less competition. Because I don’t discriminate on account of who’s behind the curtain.

Oh, wait, yes I do. The leader of the Rabid Puppies, Theodore Beale, runs a publishing house. I’ve not read any of his offerings, but I’m going to, because several are up for Hugos. I’m told they’re awful, but I’ll make that call myself. Regardless, I will never sub anything to that publisher–even if it would make me look good by comparison with their other titles–because I find the publisher’s views ugly and repellent–so much so that if you want to see his blog (which I don’t recommend), you’ll have to find it yourself. I will not link to it. Nor would I want my fiction affiliated with him in any fashion. (I have a suspicion the stories he sells reflect his views, but I don’t know yet.)

So there are places I won’t go to make a sale. Everybody’s line in the sand is different. But at the same time, when does someone become so anathema that you won’t do business with him? Does that ever change? Maybe that’s why lines are drawn in the sand; every once in a while you can wipe them out and draw new ones.

#SFWApro

Read Full Post »