The purpose of power is power
3 o'clock, June 18, 2005
And I’m abusing mine, to post something here where it’ll stand out rather than contributing to the conversation — where I’d feel compelled to closely read everything before I post, respond substantively to each substantive point, and type like hell in hopes of getting a word in edgewise before Ben posts another pithy two-page screed that forces me to rethink everything. Instead I will merely remark that:
- I fixed the bitch thing. (My anti-spam software is slow and stupid and, like the rest of my blog, at least two years behind the state of the art. I hate configuring software too much to do anything about that.)
- Nothing the Cabal has posted makes me feel particularly defensive.
- I think the criticism that we (for some fairly wide-ranging definition of us, from which feel free to exclude yourself if you’d otherwise be offended) ought to be writing more far-out stuff and fewer me-too stories is well taken.
- I think Dave Schwartz’s suggestion that the Cabal should apply that same critical eye to their own criticism also bears thinking about. (Meghan, as usual, says it well: “Why don’t you get angry about it? You are making me angry with your lack of anger.”) These are questions a lot of us ask ourselves, or have asked ourselves, somewhere in these early years of our careers, and they’re perfectly valid questions. What they aren’t, is a New Voice in Genre Criticism.
- I think most of the rest of the sentiments expressed over there — the Nebula process is screwed; too much SF is inward-directed and self-referential; SF-ness is defined by fan reaction, not subject matter — sound like places I’ve already been and things I’ve already done. (As Alan said: the unquestioned dichotomy btwn. “mainstream” and “genre” . . . and Atwood . . . aaaahhhhh, head hurts.)
- I waver between charitably assuming that the Cabalists are ignorant of the ongoing conversations around these questions (as ignorant as I was, say, five years ago) and charitably assuming that they are aware of those conversations and sooner or later will find something new to add to them.
- The best way to get attention as an SF critic, cf. Matt Cheney, is to say interesting things.
- I think the names are silly. The Cabalists themselves are on record as saying the names are silly.
- I think there’s something extra-silly — if, like Susan, I was in the middle of an annoying disseration chapter, I might say tedious, instead —, in a way that I’m not sure is intentional, about making earnest, concerned, serious posts about the State of the Field and the Meaning of the Genre under frivolous assumed names.
- So I don’t feel inclined to take the Cabal very seriously, and I don’t have any qualms about responding in a frivolous way.
- Viz., the betting pool.
- Viz., offering a prize for guessing a Clarion class rather than, say, prizes for guessing the identities of individual members.
- Viz., not holding any of this against them if, as, and when their true identities become known.
- If I didn’t think the SF world needed to have more fun, I wouldn’t be Infernokrushing.
Oh, and I’ll try and update the front-page betting records tomorrow, or Monday lunchtime at the latest.
Ben, Alan, one of you go post something about the Author and the Work, or about public and private audiences, or whatever, and let’s go talk about that there. (Hell, repost your comments from the DC thread.)
Remember, flippant is the new ironic.
I love you for this.