If You Can't Say Anything Nice...

Le Guin, Doctorow, SFWA, and Headaches

A slight recap for those of you not aware of the crap that's going on:

In a review in Slate back in May, Ruth Franklin made a comment about Michael Chabon and genre literature that got some hackles up. Ursula K. Le Guin took this and ran with it, as can be seen here. It was a marvelous piece, short and very much to the point.

Not long later, Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing reposted the entire piece.

UKL took exception to this, and apparently attempted to approach the SFWA e-piracy committee to ask for their help in this matter. Unfortunately, and unknown to her, that committee had been disbanded after the Scribd debacle (for opposite views, see here and here). And so she somehow ended up in touch with SFWA VP Andrew Burt, who attempted to get in touch with Cory to ask him to take it down. Due to the Scribd mess (I would imagine, although other things come to mind), Cory has Andrew killfiled, and so he says he knew nothing of this until it showed up elsewhere. See his apology for his own take on things, and then see UKL's acceptance of his apology.

I have issues with Cory's apology, which smacks of the sort of non-apology we're so prone to seeing these days ("I'm sorry your feelings were hurt," rather than "I'm sorry I screwed up"). However, it's not bad, once one gets past the blustering and excuse-making.

I also have issues with Andrew's involvement in this. In my eyes, he was largely responsible for the Scribd mess. As soon as UKL contacted him, it would have been wise to take it to the Board, or to SFWA president Michael Capobianco (who, true to nature, was able to calm much of this down with a phone call or two). UKL, who likely didn't know the history of the mess she was walking into, picked the least efficient way of getting this done, if efficiency is measured by the amount of noise generated, instead of actual accomplishments.

I wish I could share with you some of the crap that has been running on the private SFWA newsgroups, but that would be wrong, both morally and contractually. Suffice it to say, there are people I like and respect who are being vicious and ugly with this event, I suppose taking it as a form of retribution after having had to slink away after the Scribd screwup (how many descriptors can I come up with for that?). There are also, no surprise, people I neither like nor respect doing the same thing.

I can share the crap that's been running at Boing Boing, though. I don't know what the hell Cory was thinking, but as a purveyor of free speech, it came as a shock that comments were not allowed on his apology. And so people took to dropping comments into other threads. See here and here.

A couple of things about some of these comments sadden and dismay me. First, and the only obvious one to those of you coming late to the party, is the wretched idea that this is somehow to be blamed on UKL and perhaps her advanced age, and that people will no longer buy her books, or perhaps will take their UKL books and drop them in the trash. Second, and one I can't find any more (although perhaps it was tucked away elsewhere), an anonymous commenter reposted all of UKL's piece again, and it remained up long enough for me to read it some hours after it was posted.

This is where another player enters the game.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden is an editor at Tor, proprietor of Making Light, and as of not too long ago, comment moderator at Boing Boing. She doesn't have a lot of patience for boors and trolls, and developed a wonderful method of moderation called "disemvowelling," in which she leaves the comment up but removes all the vowels (reserved for the worst of the worst, I'll note). The visual effect is translates very much to my eyes as I assume someone gagged would to my ears.

Her control extends to what gets posted and when, at least when it comes to anonymous posters. Andrew Burt tried to post a question, and she didn't allow it. And yet she did allow the reposting of UKL's story, as well posting her own attack on Andrew, and publicly questioning whether perhaps UKL had fallen under Andrew's sway in this matter.

I don't like Andrew's actions with regard to SFWA. That's not been a secret. But, contrary to what Teresa had written (and I have a sneaking suspicion it's been disappeared, but I'll be happy to correct myself it someone else can find it), UKL is a grown woman and perfectly capable of making her own decisions. TNH's actions and inactions dismay me

As am I. I'll continue to read books by both UKL and Cory, although my continued existence as a member of SFWA is in jeopardy (I'll decide by the time I get to WFC), as is my respect for a whole swack of people. On the brighter side, there will be fewer sites to visit and waste my time each day.

ADDENDUM: It occurs to me that I danced around a couple of opinions of my own, which may be because Aidan took to puking last night. Cory may be right that republishing all of UKL's piece was fair use, but he may be wrong. I'm not a lawyer, and so the legalities are not mine to say. However, I don't see why it should have even been an issue. How hard is it to snip a 60 to 100 word portion and link to the original? Answer: not as hard as it is to back down and have people call you on it. No matter the old adage, roughly translated here as "copy first and apologize later."

On the flip side, UKL did publish her piece in the web. It's going to crop up (another author, unnamed here, emailed it to me in its entirety, and he's - I think - very conservative on the copyright front). In this case I would suggest that it would have been more sensible to not call this piracy and to contact Cory herself (either via Boing Boing or through his contact info supplied in the SFWA Directory).

Finally, I recall when Ian Frazier's Lamentations of the Father showed up on the web. (Google it and see: it's all over the place.) I did share it with some people, but when the book came out, I bought it. Certainly not everybody will, but it was worth it for me, something I wanted on my bookshelf rather than on the computer, and I wanted to put a little money on Frazier's pocket. Would I have bought it if I hadn't read it on the web? Maybe, since I knew of some of Frazier's work. But this was a spontaneous purchase, made easier because I already knew it, even though I hadn't been planning on making that purchase.

Labels: copyright, idiots, SFWA

SFWA's Latest Foolishness

I see I've had a few hits today, people coming from John Scalzi's platform for SFWA President, when he and I unsuccessfully ran on write-in campaigns, me for VP. The reason, I suspect, can be best found in Cory Doctorow's post at BoingBoing.

By the time I stumbled across the fuss in one of the SFWA private areas on SFF Net, 200+ messages had accrued, a lot of them remarkably obtuse, at least one individual yelling loudly over the tops of everyones' heads, doing his usual best to ignore whatever was said. Even if I didn't feel I was coming late to the party, it was frustrating enough that I just didn't bother to post my own thoughts.

However, as I'm currently the President of SF Canada (obviously a much smaller organization), I figure it probably makes sense to have an opinion on this. In a letter to members of SFC, I told them that I personally agree with Cory when he says "When SFWA begins to muddy the waters by asserting that the organization is its members' representative for copyright, they make it harder for actual copyright enforcement agents to do their job..." Beyond that, I've asked the members for input on their own personal beliefs on how and where their own work should appear electronically.

I'd like for all of us to be on the same page, but I understand that this is impossible. What is possible is that SFC not descend into the lunacy that consistently strikes SFWA, especially when certain people get it in their heads that they know what's best for the rest of us.

Labels: SF Canada, SFWA, writing

SFWA Election Result

I didn't win, which comes as no surprise. Even if people wanted me to win, I threw my hat into the ring late enough that plenty of ballots had already been sent in. Unlike John Scalzi, I have nothing else to say on the matter.

Labels: SFWA

Stepping Back Up to the Plate

Well, John Scalzi has decided to run as a write-in candidate for president of SFWA. My term as Canadian Regional Director is almost up, and I was prepared to let it all float away, but then some folks came to me and asked me to run for VP. The problem was, it was too late to make the ballot.

But John's right; the candidates for pres and VP are good people, but I don't think they're right for the SFWA of the future that I want to see right now. And so I'm going to piggyback on John's announcement right now and tell you all that I'm offering my name as a write-in candidate for vice president of SFWA. My platform, as written and presented to some folks last month before this all seemed to fall apart, is below:

Vice Presidential Platform for Derryl Murphy

I've done my best to serve SFWA over the past, as Canadian Regional Director (a stint of which I'm done with as of this coming election), as Chair of the Publicity Committee, and probably more that I'm not remembering right now. As my time as CRD has been rolling to a close, I have put a fair amount of thought into whether or not I can do anything else for my fellow authors, and whether or not now is the time to do so.

I believe I can and should. Whether or not it is now is up to you.

I'll spare you all the platitudes about what problems face us as authors. I will tell you that I'm a firm believer in copyright, but that copyright as it exists right now is broken. The creator should have firm control over what is done with his or her work, and that means that SFWA should be involved in processes that help the individual author - not the publisher/corporate entity that, frankly, has enough money and clout to swing its weight around without our help. I believe that it will be important for authors to embrace new digital platforms, that Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a very bad idea, but I'm also aware that at this time the membership of SFWA is remarkably divided on how to approach electronic publishing. With that in mind, how can we educate others when we can't agree on what the teachings are to be? I propose that, while we do not disband the e-piracy committee, we do change the name. Piracy is a loaded word, one that has different connotations for different people. But I also believe that we should be professional authors, writers who are paid for the work we do. Beyond that, I'm open to discussion, and I believe that there are many members whose voices in this matter have not been heard, but need to be.

We need to follow through on the audit program, especially the current and very important audit of Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. We also need to do something about the disaffection that many of our members are feeling these days, something that needs to be done without turning us into a miniature version of a nanny state. And yes, that means I don't approve of SFWA's Code of Conduct.

For those of you who don't know me: I've been a member of SFWA since the early 1990s. I've had over two dozen short stories published in a variety of markets, and one collection out from a small press. I have a novel making the rounds, but I'll spare you the sob story. I'm a former editor with Canadian small press magazine On Spec, where I also spent a term as Art Director. And yeah, I'm Canadian, but I lived in the US for a short period of time, which in the long run probably doesn't mean anything, but perhaps you'll indulge me.

Labels: SFWA