Sunday, April 22, 2018

The Cascadia Subduction Zone Vol. 8, 2






The April 2018 issue of The Cascadia Subduction Zone is out. This issue includes short fiction by Toby MacNutt, a poem by Alicia Cole, an essay by Morgen Tell on a forgotten feminist fantasy film, a Grandmother Magma entry on Angelica Gorodischer by Cristina Jurado, a new column by Karen Burhnam, "Dust Lanes," reviewing short fiction, reviews by Arley Sorg, Nancy Jane Moore, and others, as well an appreciation of Ursula K. Le Guin by Nisi Shawl, and an appreciation of the CSZ's first managing editor, Lew Gilchrist, by Kath Wilham. The issue's featured artist is Erika Steiskal.   

The CSZ is available for purchase at http://thecsz.com/. Electronic copies are $3, print copies $5; electronic subscriptions $10, print subscripts $16.


In Memoriam
Ursula K. Le Guin
Lew Gilchrist

 
Poem
Saint Roc Cemetery
  by Alicia Cole
 
Essay
Willow: A Forgotten Feminist Fantasy
  by  Morgen Tell

 
Flash Fiction
Somatic Market
  by Toby MacNutt
 
 
Dust Lanes
Short Fiction Reviews
   by Karen Burnham

Grandmother Magma
Trafalgar, by Angélica Gorodischer
     reviewed by Cristina Jurado 

Book Reviews
Torn, by Rowenna Miller
   reviewed by Kate Schaefer

Liminal Spaces, by Beth Plutchak
  reviewed by Tonya Liburd

Her Own Hero: The Origins of the Women’s Self-Defense Movement, by Wendy L. Rouse
  reviewed by Nancy Jane Moore

Wonderblood, by Julia Whicker
   reviewed by Arley Sorg

Featured Artist
Erika Steiskal

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Eleanor Arnason's Ring of Swords


I'm pleased to announce the release of a new edition of Eleanor Arnason's Ring of Swords as a volume in Aqueduct's Heirloom Book series in both print and e-book formats. Long out of print and short-listed for the Tiptree Award, many people, including Ursula K. Le Guin and Jo Walton, have wished for a new edition.

In her introduction to this new edition of Eleanor Arnason's Ring of Swords, Le Guin writes, "Ring of Swords is an intellectually fascinating science-fiction story told in the novel tradition, peopled by ordinary people content with their ordinary life, appalled to find themselves swept up into a social crisis, forced into acts and choices of historical consequence. Its ancestry includes not only The War of the Worlds but also A Tale of Two Cities and War and Peace.

"Having recently brought their own competitive, feud-ridden society into a fragile balance of peace, the Hwarhath have been facing an unexpected problem: the lack of enemies. Given the apparently innate male propensity for finding pretexts to fight, and the fact that their men were all trained as warriors, the women running things at home make sure the men stay out in space protecting the home planet. The drawback is that there seems to be nobody to protect it from. So, when in the vastness of space they finally stumble into another intelligent species, they rejoice. Enemies! At last!"

"The usual assumption," Le Guin notes, "is that if you threaten a war early in a novel, you'd better hurry up and get the bombs bursting in air. And they usually do. Novels that portray war as totally destructive and futile still focus on it--war is what they're about, war is central to them, just as it was central to the old epics that glorified heroes and battles. But a war not fought? What kind of subject is that?" Le Guin asks. Her answer? "It's a beautiful subject for a novel, and Ring of Swords is a beautiful novel."

You can read a sample of Ring of Swords here, and purchase it here.


Saturday, March 31, 2018

Congratulations to Liz Bourke

I'm pleased to report that a book published by Aqueduct is on this year's Hugo ballot, in the "Related Work" Category.

Best Related Work

Congratulations to Liz Bourke! I should also add that numerous Aqueduct authors (including me) have pieces in another book on the ballot in this category, Luminescent Threads: Connections to Octavia E. Butler,  published by Twelfth Planet Press; the late Ursula K. Le Guin (who, by the way, is also an Aqueduct author) has a book on the ballot in this category, also. Overall, I'd have to say the ballot in this category is pretty interesting this year.

ETA: You can read a sample of Liz's book here: http://www.aqueductpress.com/books/samples/978-1-61976-123-0.pdf



Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Last chance to get the Feminist Futures bundle!




A reminder, for those who thought they might want to purchase the Feminist Futures e-book bundle--just $4 for the basic four-novel package of books by Caren Gussoff, Krstine Smith, Nicole Kimberling, and me; and just $11 for those four books plus NINE more books by Vonda N. McIntyre, Louise Marley, MCA Hogarth, Athena Andreadis, Janine A. Southard, and Rosemary Kirstein. The sale ends tomorrow.

https://storybundle.com/scifi

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Sheree Thomas has been invited to Breadloaf!

Sheree Renée Thomas, author of two beautiful books published by Aqueduct, has been invited to attend a writer’s workshop with novelist Luis Alberto Urrea at Bread Loaf Environmental Writers Conference at Middlebury College in Vermont this summer. Out of hundreds of applicants only five were chosen to work with this award winning author, whom Sheree admires.

However, this brilliant opportunity comes with a steep price tag. That is where we all come in. Let's raise these costs for Sheree so she can pay the tuition, buy a plane ticket from Tennessee, leave her bills paid at home, (as she will lose paid work to attend the workshop,) and have some dollars left in hand for daily needs and emergencies. 

5,100.00 will cover these expenses. I hope that fans, friends, and colleagues who have admired Sheree’s brilliant writing, or benefited from her visionary editing and teaching, might step up with whatever they can spare. Let's make sure Sheree can take this great opportunity: work with an admired, master writer on her gorgeous new novel, network with other visionaries, and have time to create. As of this afternoon, she's nearly one-fifth there.

Above all, Sheree needs time to focus on her own writing without the constant pressure of financial worries and family obligations. She is an author who has lifted many, many other artists through her generous vision, editorial genius, and producing skills. Won't it be great for her to have a peaceful month to work her own stories and poems, and contemplate her own dreams?
(And then we get to read the new works, too!)

The tuition for the conference and workshop is due in April, 2018, so we have no time to lose. I believe we can do this! Let's make it happen for Sheree! Go here to contribute to the GoFundMe drive Pan Morrigan has set up to get Sheree to the conference.


Please give all you can, and share with everybody you know, as often as you can. I thank you for your consideration! Artists and lovers of the arts gotta stick together!

Please appreciate Sheree's brilliant resume right here, and go check out her gorgeous, groundbreaking books, too. They are available at Aqueduct Press. 
http://www.aqueductpress.com/authors/ShereeThomas.php

Sheree Renée Thomas is the two-time winner of the World Fantasy Award for her groundbreaking anthologies, Dark Matter anthologies (2001, 2005), named a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. She is the 2017 recipient of the L.A. Banks Award for Outstanding Achievement, a 2016 Tennessee Arts Commission Fellow, and the 2015 Lucille Geier-Lakes Writer-in-Residence at Smith College. She is the author of Sleeping Under the Tree of Life (Aqueduct Press), named on the 2016 James Tiptree, Jr. Award Longlist and Shotgun Lullabies: Stories & Poems. Her stories and poetry are translated in French, Urdu, and Spanish and her essays, articles, reviews have appeared in the New York Times and ESSENCE. A multigenre writer, Sheree’s stories and poems appear in several anthologies, including The Ringing Ear edited by Nikky Finney and Ghost Fishing: Eco-Justice Poetry edited by Melissa Tuckey (University of Georgia Press). She has been honored with fellowships from the Cave Canem Foundation, the Wallace Foundation, the Millay Colony of the Arts, the NY Foundation of the Arts, VCCA, Ledig House, and Blue Mountain Center. Based in Memphis, Thomas is the Associate Editor of Obsidian: Literature & Arts in the African Diaspora and the founder of Black Pot Mojo Arts.

I love Sheree's stories and poetry, and so would love to read a novel by Sheree. 


++++++++++++++++++++

ETA: The funding goal has been met! Congratulations, Sheree! 

Monday, March 19, 2018

WisCon's Member Assistance Fund

This just in from the SF3 Fundraising Committee:

Hello from WisCon’s Fundraising team!

We’re thrilled to announce that a group of our generous WisCon Member Assistance Fund donors have set us a challenge to raise funds to meet the needs of the folks in our community who need a little help to attend.

Sigrid Ellis, Jesse the K, Andrea Hairston, Kayla Fouch, Jed Hartman, Phredd Groves, and Aqueduct Press have stepped up, combining forces to make your donations go twice as far, and matching your donations up to $2,600. We’re so incredibly grateful to them!

If you donate $10, thanks to their generosity and belief in WisCon, $20 will go into the Fund. Give now to help meet their challenge—head to our Donation page to send a check or set up recurring donations, or keep it simple and go straight to paypal.me/WisCon!

(By the way, you have seen our beautiful WMAF t-shirts, right?)

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Back to me again: if you can possibly spare just a small donation, please do. Some of Aqueduct's authors, & of course many of its readers, have been able to attend because they've received assistance from this fund. And that matters to all of us.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

The 2017 Tiptree Award

The winner of the 2017 Tiptree Award is Virginia Bergin for her novel Who Runs the World? (Macmillan, UK, 2017). The novel is scheduled to be published in the US in September 2018 under the title The XY (Sourcebooks, 2018).


Who Runs the World? is a young adult novel that tells an intricately layered tale of intergenerational struggle and cooperation, the dehumanizing force of gender stereotypes, and the moral courage it takes to challenge cultural and political norms. The premise is familiar in feminist science fiction—a plague that kills nearly everyone with a Y chromosome. Bergin uses this premise first to develop a vividly imagined feminist society, and then to grapple with that society’s changes and flaws over time.

And for any who look to the Tiptree Award for a reading list each year, the jurors provide the Honor List, a group of exceptional works:

  • Charlie Jane Anders, “Don't Press Charges and I Won't Sue" (Boston Review, USA, 2017)
  • Indra Das, The Devourers (Del Rey, USA, 2016)
  • April Daniels, Dreadnought and Sovereign (Diversion, USA, 2017)
  • Maggie Shen King, An Excess Male (Harper Voyager, USA, 2017)
  • Carmen Maria Machado, Her Body and Other Parties (Gray Wolf, USA, 2017)
  • Rivers Solomon, An Unkindness of Ghosts (Akashic, USA, 2017) 
  • JY Yang, "Black Tides of Heaven" and "Red Threads of Fortune" (Tor, USA, 2017)
You’ll find more information about each work on the Honor List — and an additional  “long list” of twenty-six other works jurors found worthy of attention — on the Tiptree website.

The Tiptree Award winner, along with authors and works on the Honor List will be celebrated on Memorial Day weekend at WisCon in Madison, Wisconsin. Thanks to the support of folks like you, the winner will receive $1000 in prize money, a specially commissioned piece of original artwork, and (as always) chocolate. I hope I’ll see you at the celebration!

Reading for 2018 has begun Visit the recommendation page of the Tiptree Award website to suggest works for 2018 jury’s consideration. On the website, you can also donate to help fund the award and read more about past winners and works it has honored.

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Kate Wilhelm (1928-2018)


We lost another influential author last week. Kate Wilhelm was one year older than Ursula Le Guin and also lived in Oregon (though in Eugene, not Portland). I've probably read most of her considerable body of work. Indeed, some of her characters and their situations have lodged deep within my imagination; I'm not sure when I realized that some of these have even crept their way into my own work without my noticing. Because of that, I always find it strange to hear from younger women writing sf that they were unfamiliar with the fiction she wrote before turning mainly to murder mysteries. Her speculative fiction is largely of a non-flashy type, blending a realist style with an intense interest in the psychological and social dimensions of her characters' lives; geographical setting and local politics often figure prominently.

Kate was awarded three Nebulas and two Hugos, and SFWA's Solstice Award (which was later renamed the Kate Wilhelm Solstice Award in her honor). She was inducted into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame in 2003. Perhaps her greatest influence was as a teacher and workshop mentor, beginning with the Milford Science Fiction Writers' Conference in the late 1950s, and then with the Clarion Science Fiction Writers' Workshop. I believe that even after she stopped teaching at Clarion, she continued participating in and hosting workshops. When Leslie What and Nina Kiriki Hoffman took Eileen Gunn, Gwyneth Jones, and me to visit her in Eugene in 2004, Kate took us into a room  with comfortable chairs arranged along the perimeter; someone mentioned that this was where Eugene writers often gathered to workshop their stories (and a joke was made about Kate's tough critiques). Later she showed us an enclosed swimming pool that had been filled with soil and made into an indoor garden, something I'd never have imagined but afterwards struck me as fitting my previous image of her perfectly. 

You can find a good bibliography of her work in the Kate Wilhelm entry at the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). John Clute opines that her strongest speculative fiction writing was at novella length. While I largely agree with that judgment, let me hasten to add that her novels and shorter fiction are definitely worth seeking out. My top recommendations for someone unfamiliar with her speculative fiction would be: The Infinity Box, Welcome Chaos, Somerset Dreams and Other Fictions, Juniper Time, and Margaret and I. Her most famous sf novel, of course, is Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang (which won the Hugo).   

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

The Feminist Futures Bundle


I'm really pleased too announce The Feminist Futures Bundle, a bundle of e-books that are entirely feminist sf/f, and includes Alanya to Alanya, the first volume of my Marq'ssan Cycle. The bundle goes on sale tonight and will be available for a limited time. Let me turn you over to Cat Rambo, who curated this wonderful bundle:



In time for Women's History Month, here's a celebration of some of the best science fiction being written by women today. This bundle gathers a wide range of outlooks and possibilities, including an anthology that gives you a smorgasbord of other authors you may enjoy.
I used to work in the tech industry, and there I saw how diversity could enhance a team and expand its skillset. Women understand that marketing to women is something other than coming up with a lady-version of a potato chip designed not to crunch or a pink pen sized for our dainty hands. Diversity means more perspectives, and this applies to science fiction as well. I am more pleased with this bundle than any I've curated so far.
In her feminist literary theory classic How to Suppress Women's Writing, science fiction author Joanna Russ talked about the forces working against the works of women (and minority) writers. A counter to that is making a point of reading and celebrating such work, and for me this bundle is part of that personal effort, introducing you to some of my favorites.
And in the name of expanding one's knowledge and enjoyment of women writing SF, the majority of these books are first volumes of series, and I hope if you enjoy them, you'll find the others as well as telling other people about them. The Kirstein series is the only one where not all the books are available; she's currently working on book five and plans seven altogether. Many of them are independently or small press published, showing the depth and quality of work such publishing venues can yield.
I come to the task of writing these notes having just finished reading through a slush pile for an anthology I'm editing, If This Goes On, devoted to political science fiction. Some of the themes there are echoed in some of the works here, and it's been interesting to note the resonances. Other books in the bundle are more lighthearted or escapist. I hope everyone will find at least a few they enjoy, and that many readers will join me in thinking they're all swell.
I'll be doing some video interviews with authors about their books - look for the hashtag #thefutureisfeminist on social media or subscribe to my Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/spezzatura) or newsletter (http://www.kittywumpus.net/blog/newsletter/) to make sure you get notified when they appear! – Cat Rambo
The initial titles in the Feminist Futures Bundle (minimum $5 to purchase) are:
  • Happy Snak by Nicole Kimberling
  • Alanya to Alanya by L. Timmel Duchamp
  • Code of Conduct by Kristine Smith
  • The Birthday Problem by Caren Gussoff
If you pay at least the bonus price of just $15, you get all four of the regular titles, plus SIX more!
  • Starfarers Quartet Omnibus - Books 1-4 by Vonda N. McIntyre
  • The Steerswoman by Rosemary Kirstein
  • Spots the Space Marine by M.C.A. Hogarth
  • The Terrorists of Irustan by Louise Marley
  • Queen & Commander by Janine A. Southard
  • To Shape the Dark by Athena Andreadis
This bundle is available only for a limited time via http://www.storybundle.com. It allows easy reading on computers, smartphones, and tablets as well as Kindle and other ereaders via file transfer, email, and other methods. You get multiple DRM-free formats (.epub and .mobi) for all books!
It's also super easy to give the gift of reading with StoryBundle, thanks to our gift cards – which allow you to send someone a code that they can redeem for any future StoryBundle bundle – and timed delivery, which allows you to control exactly when your recipient will get the gift of StoryBundle.
Why StoryBundle? Here are just a few benefits StoryBundle provides.
  • Get quality reads: We've chosen works from excellent authors to bundle together in one convenient package.
  • Pay what you want (minimum $5): You decide how much these fantastic books are worth. If you can only spare a little, that's fine! You'll still get access to a batch of exceptional titles.
  • Support authors who support DRM-free books: StoryBundle is a platform for authors to get exposure for their works, both for the titles featured in the bundle and for the rest of their catalog. Supporting authors who let you read their books on any device you want—restriction free—will show everyone there's nothing wrong with ditching DRM.
  • Give to worthy causes: Bundle buyers have a chance to donate a portion of their proceeds to Mighty Writers and Girls Write Now!
  • Receive extra books: If you beat the bonus price, you'll get the bonus books!
StoryBundle was created to give a platform for independent authors to showcase their work, and a source of quality titles for thirsty readers. StoryBundle works with authors to create bundles of ebooks that can be purchased by readers at their desired price. Before starting StoryBundle, Founder Jason Chen covered technology and software as an editor for Gizmodo.com and Lifehacker.com.
For more information, visit our website at storybundle.com, tweet us at @storybundle and like us on Facebook.



Friday, February 23, 2018

Editorial conversation

Back in 2002 I read a good chunk of The Element of Lavishness: Letters of Sylvia Townsend Warner & William Maxwell, then for some unknown reason put it aside, on the shelf nearest my head in bed, where such books usually go, until I think to pick them up again. The serendipity of hearing each of these writers mentioned (separately) in passing in the last week reminded me of that volume, and so I picked it up again and resumed reading. Back in 2002 I was neither an editor nor a publisher, and so I read their correspondence from a writer’s point of view. Both correspondents wrote novels, short fiction, and essays; both read copiously. But one part of their correspondence arose from their editor/writer relationship, which back in 2002 did not strike me as particularly interesting, even though Maxwell was one of the most celebrated editors of the twentieth century. Maxwell achieved his reputation as an editor serving as The New Yorker’s fiction editor from 1936-75. In a 2008 article in The New Yorker, “Imperishable Maxwell,” heralding the publication of Maxwell’s fiction in two volumes in the Library of America, John Updike began, “To those who knew him, William Maxwell as a person—soft-spoken yet incisive, moist-eyed yet dry-voiced, witty yet infallibly tactful—threatened to overshadow Maxwell as a writer. We aspiring authors who enjoyed his unstinting editorial attention and gracious company tended to forget that, for four days of the week, he stayed at home and wrote, reporting to the typewriter straight from breakfast, often clad in bathrobe and slippers.”

Maxwell published many of Warner’s stories in The New Yorker. By 2002 I’d read a few of her novels, most notably the brilliant Lolly Willowes and strange, magnificent Summer Will Show, and some of her stories. I’d long been looking for the book that Joanna Russ adored and talked about often, The Corner That Held Them, and hadn’t yet found it. (I eventually spotted it in Powell’s and acquired it—but now realize that I never got around to reading it, which obviously I’ve got to do.) Reading the letters, I found her odd (to me) life and her sharp insights interesting, as I did her and Maxwell’s discussion of writing process. But I skimmed past editorial conversations.

Now in February 2018, picking up exactly where I left off (February 3, 1964), I’m delighted to run smash into an editorial conversation, perhaps because I’m spending so much time bouncing back and forth being a writer on one hand and a publisher and editor on the other. Here’s Maxwell writing to Warner:

 I hope that it is true that in the matter of your stories I am just a little unique, but in the matter of “Johnnie Brewer” I suspect were all a little unique.

 I will begin with myself. I took this sentence for the clue to the story: “England also contained castles, cathedrals, an unknown number of the oldest yew trees in England Devil’s Dykes, Devil’s Beef tubs, Stonehenge, and his grandmother.” Your lists are never haphazard, and I took this story to be a distant cousin to Lolly Willowes, or a grandnephew. As I read it, the hero, who comes from a new and fairly raw civilization and is therefore naturally attracted to everything that is old in the country of his mother’s birth, is, in spite of or perhaps because of an almost American ingenuousness, given a taste of what lies at the heart of a civilization or a person who has reached a very great age—not evil as it is commonly thought of in the contemporary world but a much older, livelier, and more hair-raising thing altogether—something (as the Puritans used to say) abominable. All this against the background of the most ravishing descriptions of the English countryside that have ever been, or ever will be, written—something else that is only possible in a place of great age.

Number 2: Mr. [Robert] Henderson took it to be a story about a young Australian who went to visit his English grandmother and while he was there, in the middle of the night, he had an experience so horrifying that Mr. Henderson doesn’t expect ever to forget it.

Number 3: Mr. Shawn read it as the story of two old ladies who are competing with each other for the boy’s affection, both wanting to mother him, and jealous of each other’s attentions to him, but thinks that the scene in the middle of the night needs to be toned down a bit.

Though I am conveying this suggestion to you (and you must of course feel perfectly free to act on it, if it appeals to you) my heart isn’t in it. I think he read the story too hurriedly and doesn’t understand what it is really about. It is successful as it stands—though horrifying (and meant to be)—and would not be successful if you toned down (that is to say did away with the conscious sexual intention) the scene in the middle of the night, because that is the story.

But it is not a story that can be printed in The New Yorker.

I will hold the manuscript until I hear from you.

PS I neglected to say that if we are all three wrong, or if I am wrong, it is most important that you set us straight.

So, three editorial readings, three different stories (so to speak). Reminds one a bit of workshop readings, doesn’t it? But the key, of course, for the purposes of editing, is figuring out—and in this case, asking the author— what the story she wishes to tell is. That will determine (a) whether the story needs more work and (b) whether it’s suitable for the venue the editor is serving. I’ll admit that I’m tickled by the idea of this story being the “grandnephew” of that superb novel, Lolly Willowes. (I don’t think it’s ever occurred to me to characterize an author’s works in terms of familial relations.) What particularly appeals to me in Maxwell’s side of the conversation is the way in which his preferred reading isn’t one that is compatible with the magazine he’s reading for—but that he’s open to a different reading, albeit one that will require a rewrite, depending on the author’s own wishes for the story.

And Warner’s response?


“You were nearest right, because you saw the old women were part of the landscape; Mr. Shawn was on a right line, for their competition and jealousy is what unlocks their sexual excitement. But I have misled you all, because none of you have seen that both of them are withering with boredom in their ravishing surroundings, and that why they talked about the hard winter was that it was something positive to talk about, the only interesting thing that had happened for years. I thought (but wrongly) that the quotation from Virgil, far from haphazard, and needing a careful grafting in to the story, would be pointer enough to why they seized on the novelty, the gobbet, or fresh young Johnnie. And another thing I now wonder if I established enough is Johnnie’s blithe and heartless egotism. Did you feel, when he drove on into Wales, that any scar, any dint, would remain on him? I didn't. He drove all day, and spent the night at St. David’s with never a thought of the night at Bodkins because in the morning he would see the cathedral properly by daylight.

So I think a little later on I would like the story back, to see if I can readjust the values. At the moment, obviously the scene in the middle of the night is far too assertive; toning it down and toning up the boredom of ergo tua rura manebunt [“Thy lands are yet thine own,” Virgil] might fix it. I should like to fix it; because lately I have got into a bad way of always having a reflective or analytic character somewhere about, a sort of Stockmar who exists in order to save me the trouble of making statements that can stand without being annotated. True, I am cunning enough to make my Stockmars rush to wrong conclusions—but a wrong conclusion is only a signpost to the right one. No! Down with Uncles!

So: seeing that some of her subtlety (“pointer enough”) was too subtle for even as acute a reader as Maxwell (not to mention his assistants), Warner began to wonder if other things might need “toning up” as well. I’m reading her reply as assuming that it is a “New Yorker story.” Since she has by this point sold numerous stories to that magazine, likely she had a sound sense of what kind of stories they would take and what kind of stories they wouldn’t. The story doesn’t come up again in the volume of letters, but it was in fact published in The New Yorker in April 1965, a little more than a year later.

This exchange, I imagine, offers us a fine example of what editorial conversation between a first-rate editor and a first-rate writer looks like. 

Friday, February 9, 2018

Guest Post: An Open Letter to Margaret Atwood by Kristin King



An Open Letter to Margaret Atwood

by Kristin King


Dear Margaret Atwood, 

In a recent op-ed, you asked the question: “Am I a bad feminist?” My short answer, from one feminist to another, is no. My longer answer is that the question itself turns what ought to be a dialogue into a bitter argument. This is poor feminist practice. Your response to #metoo activists similarly polarizes debate surrounding sexual harassment and abuse, when the conversation could instead have turned elicited insights. And strangely, your response inadvertently pulls from talking points that have been circulating recently as a result of a deliberate and misogynist public relations campaign. 

However, the best part of feminism is our ability to learn from our disagreements. In the interest of furthering feminist solidarity and dialogue, I have some comments to make. 

The good/bad feminist divide

Framing the issue as a Good Feminist / Bad Feminist one draws battle lines and sets you up for further attack. It puts on blinders and prohibits dialogue. 

Let me offer a glimpse of my own perspective on the feminist movement, from someone who found feminism in the early 1990s. The first professor who taught me feminist theory was Katherine Stockton. She grounded me in queer issues, disability in the feminist movement, and more. And the next was my creative writing professor Colleen McElroy, who helped me start learning about race with authors such as bell hooks and Gloria Anzaldúa. My continuing self-education has also included the Combahee River Statement, which considered issues of race, class, and gender both together and separately. 

So I didn’t participate in second-wave feminism, even though I certainly reaped its benefits. But I did watch a rift widen between second-and third-wave feminists. I have seen some second-wave feminists who have succeeded in their goals, perhaps have become acting CEOs in their own companies as you have done, dismiss feminists working intersectionally, viewing that practice as a distraction from the primary issue of male and female equality. 

Skipping ahead to the present, I see that many millennial feminists are broke, can’t afford college, which isn’t going to get them good jobs anyhow. It’s not just that they don’t expect to reach the glass ceiling--they’re not even inside the building. They’re living in sleeping bags out in the cold. 

So there are real divisions between women, based on their lived experiences, and those divisions can be and are being exploited by, in your words, “those who do not wish women well.” 

Into this mix comes your op-ed and the language it uses. I see it using talking points that are also being pushed by corporately funded propaganda outlets posing as media. I assume this is unintentional, so a close examination of what I see might provide a beneficial learning opportunity.  

Using the language of the far-right corporate patriarchy

First let’s take a peek at some of the underlying power dynamics .-The wealthiest and most powerful, white men of course, the patriarchy, are using their wealth to pay PR firms to design and push their talking points, which then end up in popular culture, our everyday conversations. Some of it is misogynist, but the primary goal, I believe, is the aim of holding on to money and power. Noam Chomsky articulated the basic problem of news propaganda back in 1992, in his book Manufacturing Consent, and many people have also been watching the idea of manufactured backlash, as in a recent Huffington Post article, “The Fake Feminism Of The #MeToo Backlash.”  Unfortunately, in our current age, all manner of billionaires and corporations are using social media to spread propaganda that benefits them. And none of us is immune. 

Within that context, I’ll put on my hat of “literary critic” and compare three texts: an article published on a news media site of unknown ownership, an article published by a P.R. company, and finally your op-ed.
On December 13, 2017, the article “The #MeToo Movement Is Destroying Trust Between Men And Women” by D.C. McAllister appeared in The Federalist online journal. The Federalist isn’t a news journal but a series of opinion pieces that feature classic examples of propaganda, such as glittering generalities, straw men, name-calling, deliberate vagueness, and a false framing of the narrative. The journal has a readership in the millions--a guarantee that the ideas it spreads will propagate widely. Who is funding this journal? That’s not so transparent. Reader beware.  

On December 18th, 2017, another article appeared on another propaganda outlet, this one specifically targeted at feminists. The outlet was the site Spiked! Online, which has a long history of manipulating public dialogue, especially in the field of agricultural science. This history is readily available through SourceWatch or through research explained by George Monbiot. Its intention is also clearly laid out in their own words upon launch in 2000, available on the Wayback Machine, “nothing less than the creation of a new language for political, social and cultural writing in the twenty-first century.”

The article itself, “Meet the Women Worried about #MeToo,” includes short pieces written by thirteen different women and selected by an editor for the benefit of those funding the magazine. 

A close read of both articles reveals common messages, or talking points, that the outlets want to spread to the public for general use. Each of these messages stops or deflects dialogue in some way. And each message is reflected in your own op-ed. I’ll just take three to examine: the witch-hunt metaphor, framing as a legal issue, and “real feminists.” 

Witch-hunt metaphor

The metaphor of a witch-hunt and similar terms is a key weapon used against #metoo. Combing through through the two propaganda articles, it’s easy to find phrases like, “the sexual harassment witch-hunt,” “mob behavior,” “mass hysteria,” and “orgy of female victimhood,” as well as references to the beheadings that took place in the French Revolution. 

This metaphor has an invisible payload of meaning, which is quite intentional on the part of propagandists. Witches don’t exist, and this implies by analogy sexual predators don’t either. Then there is the gendered component, which is perhaps the reason “witch hunt” is used rather than McCarthyism.
In your op ed, when you note that your accusers mistakenly “think I was comparing them to the teenaged Salem witchfinders and calling them hysterical little girls,” it’s worth going deeper and asking  Why do they think that?” I suggest it’s because somebody with money is pushing the witch-hunt metaphor in order to deliver that exact message. 

Explaining what you did and did not mean by “witch hunt” doesn’t solve that problem, because the implication remains. A stronger move might involve hunting for a new metaphor, or simply diving into the specifics of the core issue with more concrete language.     

Framing as a legal issue
 
Another propaganda talking point is framing an assault complaint as a legal issue and invoking the principles of “due process” and “innocent until proven guilty.” There’s a core of truth here: an accusation of anything requires fair consideration. But there’s also a big manipulation of language. 

Going back to the propaganda articles, the Federalist article complains, “When anything from a naive touch during a photo shoot to an innocent attempt at a kiss is compared to rape” and “men never know when they will be presented at the court of injustice as a ‘sexual abuser’,” it is arguing by implication that an innocent kiss can get a man taken to court. The Spiked article makes similar connections, right down to requiring an act to be illegal before it’s called assault. 

A legal framing puts blinders on us and asks us to ignore obvious facts. First, making a public complaint or talking to Human Resources is entirely different from filing criminal charges. Second, social media is not a court. Third, “innocent until proven guilty” is a high standard that our criminal justice system should, but does not often, provide. Fourth, although the government owes us “due process” in criminal cases, most people don’t actually expect it in the workplace. (Though we should.) 

It’s worth taking a moment to explore due process in the workplace. All workers deserve a fair process before disciplinary action is taken, but most don’t get it. Most people have “at-will” employment, and they get fired all the time for getting sick, failing to smile . . . and for reporting sexual harassment and assault to HR.  The remedy here is a grievance process that requires employers to establish “just cause” and for workers to have access to a grievance process. 

Your op ed unfortunately fell into the trap of using a legal framing, and the focus on “due process” paved the road for an incomplete analysis of the situation. Your note that “[h]is faculty association launched a grievance that is continuing,” actually refers to a union grievance, which will indeed be heard and settled by a higher authority than the university. Because of his union membership, the professor has more due process than most people get. Further, although the workings of the university process are not publicly available, that does not automatically mean they were incorrect. The university is likely legally compelled to remain silent, and also, confidentiality protects both accused and accuser.  

Is it possible to say what we mean without using legal metaphors? Definitely. For instance, perhaps “due process” is best when a case of assault is going to court, but “a grievance process” more accurately conveys what we need from other institutions and the community at large. 

Real feminists

Another talking point, which is revealed in the Spiked article, pits “real” feminists against the rest. “Real” feminism is defined as fighting to be treated as equals in the workplace, empowering women as opposed to infantilizing them, and working together as “women and men of good will” to “fashion more equitable workplaces.” The past history of women dealing with harassment gets a new, macho spin, for “those of us who have spent years metaphorically kicking sex pests in the balls.” And the worry expressed is that all this fuss over harassment risks “turning the clock back on hard-won sexual equality.” 

These statements divide women into two groups: the over-40 crowd who fought for and won equality and the strange younger demographic who thinks winking constitutes harassment, who are “fragile” and lack “robust common sense.” 

This division helps nobody, and so it’s disturbing to see it reflected in your op ed, which ironically divides women into “Bad Feminists” (who are right) and “Good Feminists” (who are wrong). The wrong feminists “believe that women are children,” align politically with misogynists, want to take away fundamental justice from men, are “feeding into the very old narrative that holds women to be incapable of fairness,” are “giving the opponents of women yet another reason to deny them positions of decision-making,” have an ideology, expect everyone to “puppet their views,” and are now participating in unproductive squabbling. 

It might be more useful to think about good and bad feminist practice. Instead of calling names, a focus on practice  opens a dialogue about what we are doing and why we are doing it. What constitutes good feminist practice to me? To you? Where are we similar and different? 

How did this happen?

Your op-ed came at a key moment for the #metoo backlash and dovetailed with talking points that have been chosen by corporations whose business is public propaganda for the world’s most powerful men. Why? I speculate that somebody took advantage of the frustration you have been feeling over seeing a fellow novelist publicly attacked, and that after the talking points they were pushing had a time to saturate public dialogue, offered you the opportunity to put your words in print--but for their own cynical reasons.  

That an author of highly revered feminist dystopia can be manipulated by patriarchy’s PR machine makes this a chilling moment for all of us. Time to step back and look at how social media is not only providing fake news but also twisting public dialogue as it comes out of our own mouths, turning thoughtful commentary into friendly fire. 

What now? 

The simplest solution to the problem of dialogue we don’t like is to ask everybody to “stop squabbling.” From your point of view, the angry #metoo activists should calm down and quit their witch-hunt. From my point of view, I’d prefer that you stop using the term witch-hunt.  But both requests to silence speech are too easy, and they leave us open to yet more manipulation and pointless infighting. 

A trickier but more powerful answer is for us to deepen the dialogue, to continue as feminists have always done and reach across divisions to find common ground. An example of such cross-generational discussion is “Feminists From Three Different Generations Talk Me Too,” which recently appeared on Vox.com. From a position of mutual solidarity, it is indeed possible for feminists to consider the issues on our own terms.  

That brings me back to the issue at the heart of your op-ed--what #Metoo participants should and should not do.

How to stop sexual violence

The real question is not whether or not you are a good or bad feminist, or whether #Metoo posters represent a lynch mob, but what to do with the very real question of sexual violence in our communities.
One group that has been working on the problem for decades is women of color. In particular, a group called Incite! Women of Color Against Violence met in a founding conference in 2000 to discuss how to stop violence in their communities, and it branched off in many directions. A framework for community accountability emerged in 2003 with no clear answers but with groundbreaking ideas and questions. A lot of the strategies and terms that are now surprising many white people, such as “believe the survivor,” came out of that work. But it is a nuanced practice, including other concepts such as “impact versus intent” and sitting down with both parties. That’s very different from someone reflexively sending a “believe the survivor” tweet. 

We have thorny problems to address, such as a conflict between transparency and confidentiality, and also between the need to believe the survivor and to follow a fair process. But I know from first-person experience that they are being addressed. I recently participated in a democratic discussion about how an organization might modify its complaints process to account for sexual harassment and abuse. Even though most of the people in the organization are men, the new survivor-focused process passed overwhelmingly. It looks like the world is ready for a change. 

This is, as you say, an important moment in history. 

Yours for the movement,
Kristin King


Works cited, and further reading 

Atwood, Margaret. “Am I a Bad Feminist?” The Globe and Mail, 15 Jan. 2018, www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/.

Moraga Cherríe, and Anzaldúa Gloria. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. SUNY Press, 2015. Available at http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6102-this-bridge-called-my-back-four.aspx.

bell hooks

Anzaldúa Gloria, and AnaLouise Keating. The Gloria Anzaldúa Reader. Duke University Press, 2009. Available at https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-gloria-anzaldua-reader.

Combahee River Collective. “The Combahee River Collective Statement.” Released 1977, available on circuitous.org/scraps/combahee.html.

 “Manufacturing Consent.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Feb. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent.

Fallon, Claire. “The Fake Feminism Of The #MeToo Backlash.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 20 Jan. 2018, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/metoo-backlash-feminism_us_5a621cf7e4b01d91b2552f26

McAllister, D.C. “The #MeToo Movement Is Destroying Trust Between Men And Women.” The Federalist, FDRLST Media, 15 Dec. 2017, thefederalist.com/2017/12/13/metoo-movement-destroying-trust-men-women/.

“Meet the Women Worried about #MeToo.” Feminism | Spiked, Spiked Ltd, 18 Dec. 2018, www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/meet-the-women-worried-about-metoo/20639

“Spiked Online.” SourceWatch, www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Spiked_Online.

Monbiot, George. “George Monbiot: Invasion of the Entryists.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Dec. 2003, www.theguardian.com/education/2003/dec/09/highereducation.uk2.

Elizabeth Velez, April Sizemore-Barber, and Hanna Chan. “Feminists from 3 Different Generations Talk #MeToo.” Vox, Vox, 31 Jan. 2018, www.vox.com/conversations/2018/1/31/16952380/me-too-second-third-wave-feminism-backlash.

 “Community Accountability.” INCITE!, Incite National, incite-national.org/page/community-accountability.