Burning Books and More Burning Books

Burning books (wait, don't leave, I'm not going to keep saying it!)-- ahem, well, it doesn't have the same effect that it used to. Most of us that know how to spell "Wikipedia" AKA the resource you are never allowed to use in college, are aware of the historical implications. It was a vicious way that rather large hate groups would go about censoring speech. Written history has been lost in countless wars and raids, so at one time, it was simply a horrifying loss of knowledge, even an abuse of precious resources. There was a time in history where even paper was a luxury-- at least until as early as 6th century AD in China and reaching mass production in the 14th century. Some Gay Yeti was credited in the 18th century as the designer of the modern roll, but until the 1930s, splinter-free was not a guarantee. Ouch. Some of that may or may not be accurate, so ffs, never take any source as gospel. Start here!

I understand that some people adore books. I adore my own paper book collection, but I simply don't feel that way for all books. If you want to burn your own copies or use them as toilet paper, feel free. You spent your own money and digital is a thing now-- no book is in danger of being lost to history anymore. Maybe don't burn your Kindle over a crappy book and definitely don't use it as toilet paper. Deletion is not as satisfying as a more physical expression of personal distaste, I know, but I'm positive that most of us don't want a bad book to cost upwards of $50 to replace some hardware.

Speaking of book burning, morality signaling ties in very closely to the sentiment people get for objects. I'm not unaware that the world is a crazy, scary place. Violence is skyrocketing in America and entitlement is getting ridiculous. Still, the call for violent entertainment to be eradicated has lost traction over the years, instead replaced by... sex and swearing. 

Ugh.

In this climate, I can't believe how often full-grown adults are hung up on those two things. Not just some sex, but all sex. Fade to black is even too racy for some of the complainers. 

"Expressions of love shouldn't be invasive." 

"They're masturbation fantasies..."

"I'm afraid I'll enjoy something that makes me uncomfortable" <--- conservative politicians

 I'm waiting for any of these excuses to not be lame, but the fact is, they are. It's not a crime to have a dirty mind. It's not even a crime to guiltily entertain a fantasy about screwing a turtle. Brains do some really odd connectivity exercises that don't translate into anything at all. Or they become entertainment. Whether or not we 'enjoy' it isn't the primary factor. Sometimes it's just interesting or evocative.

And if it's not outright fucking, it's fucking WORDS. I can agree with critics that find fault with misuse. If no one gets what you're trying to say, it's a problem. Completely negates the purpose of language when nothing is being communicated. However, when usage at all is the problem, I find issue with that. If certain words turn you off, I'm not going to demand that you get over it. Have your opinion. However, disparaging remarks on the intelligence or vocabulary of the user? Well, if you've been reading, you can see that I have no problem coming up with 'big words'. Mine are some of the bigliest. I also have no problem hitting you with puns, metaphors, analogies, idioms and clever comebacks. 

I love words. Most of them. Personally, I avoid the n-word and it's got shit to do with being white. I have never ever heard it used in any way that doesn't make it sound horrible. I'm not talking about 'nigga' but I'm not throwing that one around either. Why? Because I've never had a purpose for it. You could hear me attempt to say it, but I don't have a 'blaccent' and I sound dumb as fuck. I will never write a story that goes there. Does that mean I found issue with Mark Twain? Hell, no. I find no fault with his usage of it, but that's not where my interest in writing goes. I also don't use 'Jesus Christ' but then I write 'original' fantasy and Christianity isn't a thing there. However, I might drop a "Gods damn you!"

To my way of thinking (and therefore it is an opinion), censoring thought, literature, anything that you are NOT forced to look at-- it's akin to the ANCIENT loss of burning books. Knock it off with the 'I don't like it, so it shouldn't exist.' Believe it or not, I understand discretion. I drop f-bombs with my friends, but I check the usage around other people's kids and grandparents (even though my own grandparents are cool as fuuuuuuck and don't mind if one or two slips out when I'm venting). You see, even the socially impaired are still capable of showing some consideration. I also don't advertise my personal sexual stances to any but a RARE few-- I'm actually quite conservative there. Even though I would love for my books to be read, I'm not terribly concerned with being appropriate. At any time, you can be suitably disgusted and thrust my book at the first foul creature you smack into. However, suppressing my message DOES have dire consequences. 

When someone sets about trying to eliminate everything they find personally distasteful, what does it do? Turns everyone into criminals. Outlawing prostitution could very well incite rape. People who can't turn to one outlet will find another and often it's a lot less healthy. Despite the fact that guns are getting out of hand, I wouldn't entertain banning them. Control is something we need to work with, just like healthcare. Reform is frustrating, but I am a firm believer that moderation is key in everything. And in literature, sorry, anything goes. I don't disagree that it could benefit from a ratings system to keep children and parents informed, but it's also an extremely passive form of entertainment. You don't accidentally pick up a book, if at all.

If I have to find anything virtuous about my adult stories, it's that it is an honest outlet. I would love to write children's and YA adult books in the future, but they care about very different things than I do at my stage in life. Still, I strive to not only write for myself. I want to write for everyone along the way, just not at the same time and when my story is right for it. I don't intend to pander and I don't intend to cater to anyone but my muse. I will be more than happy to accept that it isn't for you, but it's for someone else.

Lemme close this up with a point of discussion that made my heart sing. Now this is a long article, but one worth the trip... Article that is well worth it

 My favorite part: where the Big Five publisher makes it clear that they do NOT pull their authors for controversial work or outcries. Encourages readers to voice their negative opinions, equally encourages authors to IGNORE them.

The rest: If you didn't click on it, let me sum it up. Some people REALLY value their opinion. The sort of narcissism where they believe that they are so righteous that it is worth trying to destroy a girl's career. This author decided to make an attempt at using fantasy to explain how a racist character (of fantasy races, mind you) reforms her thinking. An honest attempt at tackling more literature on diversity. Well, it's not that she did it, but that she did it WRONG. Only she didn't. She offered a perspective to which other women and/or non-colorless people took issue with. As a colorless girl, she was told she didn't have the range to be sensitive... Look, I could go on, but I won't. Honestly, I hope this chick does sell her book, learn from this, and go on to sell many more. I hope she doesn't lose the courage to keep tackling sensitive subjects. I hope this world stops penalizing people for making an honest attempt at understanding. You don't have to be openly vicious to be attacked anymore. You just have to offend someone looking for a hill to die on. These same people will wave off real hate as ignorance but go after someone who makes an honest effort by waiting until their back is turned and their livelihood is involved.

Pun so intended, (at least click on the link for the headline if this one is going over anyone's head) but it's a witch hunt. You can make a disabled character that is a gay POC and the first troll will pop in with 'why can't a straight white person be disabled?' Are we really trying to live in a world where the rules are changing so much and on every whim so everyone can be equally offended? Let's cut the shit. We need community. The non-exclusive kind where we actually tolerate things. You know, like how I don't shoot my neighbor even though it pisses me off that his car stereo is too loud. When discomfort is met with over-9000 reactions, we've moved well past reason and discussion. I consider myself fairly liberal, but no, I will not be lectured at about everything that needs to die because it offends you. That used to be an alt-right sentiment, but the alt-left is twinning on that. I'm still of the era where liberal meant tolerance and change. I can't relate to the intolerance and CONSTANT irrational change. Quite frankly, if I don't know you, I don't owe you gratification for however you identify. Be reasonable.

I went on well beyond where I intended to go. Armed with coffee and fighting sleep? Yes'm'sir! Let me throw in a quick update since I've been busy the past few days.

• Finished formatting my first series' books for ebook and print (7 books, each between 300-400 pages)
• Working on a cover for the third book, about halfway done. I will continue doing covers, but inside illustrations are postponed. I may bring this back later, but it is incredibly time-consuming so it's at the bottom of my list.
• Still working on finishing Part I of III for UnSung. This one is creeping a bit while I try to get my third book out.
• Will be juggling cover art with writing UnSung until I finish the art or the book.
• Once those two main projects are done, this may be where I start my webcomic idea. I'm going to post a poll to my FaceBook page concerning my two ideas. Please vote, whether you plan on following it or not.

And that's all I got. Okay, I'm lying, but blog ≠ book and this has gone on long enough.

Keep writing! Or reading! Whatever floats your boat.

LGBT+ and Its Presence in Fiction

An author friend of mine, Amelia Faulkner, posted a very insightful article by Han Hirschi titled "Why Writing LGBT Stories Doesn't Make You a Part of the LGBT Community." I'm not going to rehash it, but if it's a topic of curiosity, do check out this opinion piece and feel free to talk about it...

What did interest me aside from that were the comments and discussion, which these articles/posts are meant to do.

I haven't ever really discussed my impression of stories like 50 Shades that got similar flack for what communities often address: inaccuracy and inclusion.  It seems to be a common offense in the LGBT community-- if you're not one of us don't write about us.

Keep in mind that you could BE one of those letters and some people will still find offense. There is the general jab to NOT write outside your letter or you're basically writing as an "ally" which some people feel are outside of the community.

This is precisely why, as a writer and author, I don't feel particularly fond of writing 'as a representative' and make it clear that I have no interest in a hive mind mentality.  Everyone needs allies, even if they tend to step on toes by not having 'the same struggle.'  Who does? I certainly don't adopt the struggles of all white women of questionable preference and eclectic fandoms.

Whether you like it or not, fantasy is just that.  It is not meant to be inclusive or factual, nor particularly accurate, even when some attempt is made to give it a basis in logic. It is sometimes written with a broad audience in mind, sometimes just appealing to a handful.  Fiction is meant to be daring and offer a writer's unique take and perspective.  Nevertheless, it is entertainment, first and foremost, and was never meant to be held to the standards of nonfiction where facts and accuracy carry far more weight.

So when I see someone is offended, I do consider where they are coming from, but if they are in attack mode, they are far less sympathetic. Being offended is their choice and chances are it is coming from a sincere place.  Yet, as Dave Chappelle said, how far can total strangers be expected to adopt the quirks of someone's identity? Is it not far better that there is an attempt to be empathetic or interested than it is to avoid addressing anything so people can feel 'safe'?

I have seen many 'safe' works and they end up being far more offensive or bland due to the lack of anyone challenging anything.  What makes up one person's interest and take on fantasy is not going to be good for everyone.  Even in genres, you'll get people who balk at being challenged as to what 'belongs' there.

Yes, books like 50 Shades can be controversial in their poor examples of actual BDSM (and let's not forget-- it is definitely a literary nightmare, being poorly written).  BDSM communities were quick to jump its shit, domestic abuse and mental health advocates were quick to explain that the Ana chick was a victim, but I think over the course of controversy, we forget one thing.

It is fiction, whether you like it or not.  It is good to facilitate those discussions, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Whatever personal or professional reasons you have, don't deny writers their voice or try to intimidate them away from that outlet.

On a side note, if anyone feels I am abrasive, understand that you missed my intent. I can be brash and honest, but I never give any advice or opinion as if the mike is dropped and no more needs to be said.  By all means, challenge me, but keep in mind, I lose enough sleep on creative endeavors. I won't be drawn into useless feels over opinions, but I will gladly lose sleep over intelligent discussion.

Wish I could cite some more LGBT examples.  The mentioned friend does write queer male stories as a bisexual woman, so if that's your thing, do check it out!  Gotta pick up my nephews, so if I have more to add specifically on LGBT+, I'll update it after some coffee.

-----

Just a little more to add. I did want to go back to at least weighing in on the article. There was a lot of emphasis in one section where the poster is adamant that heterosexuals (and a side note including whether asexuals or aromantics 'belong.') Maybe it is true that it is 'problematic' when they consider themselves part of that community when they can be seen as 'the enemy' or an 'abnormality.' Still, you have to consider that their sympathies mean that they often don't fit where you think they should go, especially among homophobes or the very questionable grey areas of the ever-debated asexual spectrum. There are plenty of people whose comfort zone doesn't get a nice little label. Hell, maybe they can't identify or have an underlying mental illness they aren't completely aware of. In trying to force them into a box, it doesn't do them any favors. I get it if you don't want those people to speak for you, but even in the comfort of a community, 'your' people will try to do just that.  It is better to weigh in on their actual intent rather inject your own general bias, is it not? No one likes assumptions.  Opinions are fine, but always speak for yourself.  Even when you are asked to speak for someone less courageous, be prepared for them to disagree.

Be good to each other whenever possible and keep writing!

Cult of Personality

I know I am absolutely not the first to ever think of this, but I continually find it to be the strangest phenomenon that people are so closely wrapped up in the lives of celebrities that it affects their ability to enjoy the creative output.

Some people love the spotlight, good or bad.  Getting into the psychology of a personality is not where I'm going with this ultimately.  This is more concerning the direct confusion I often experience with the zeitgeist (a word referring to the collective likes or dislikes that form trends or attitudes).

I don't even attempt to put my finger on trends and a lot of the things social media claims are "trends" are clickbait sites and absolutely no one is actually doing them and it is therefore satire...

Let me start with an example.  Kanye West is a douchebag.  I don't mean this disrespectfully because I absolutely adore his music. No, I don't care if that's uncool and, yes, I think it's hilarious that he slammed that Swifty chick who has zero talent, no personality, and is getting no actual mention of her name from me.  See, the thing is, I liked his music from the first time I heard it.  Bought his College Dropout album the week it came out and noted two things about him right away: he had a clever rhythm and flow (a brilliant lyricist) and the music itself was always infectious.  Through the Wire was one of the most looped songs for me back then.  

News about him was pretty unavoidable, but here's the other thing-- I've never thought that artists should be rewarded simply for being likable or get morality sales for good behavior or lose fans for bad behavior.  I find it abhorrent when political parties manipulate people this way or think that moral stances should be laws.  You police thought and action and you make outlaws out of otherwise good people.  Given, I do understand liking someone as a person and being curious enough about how that might translate into how they work creatively, but doing it the OTHER way, well, it's rarely ever a good experience.

Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton were two such authors that were a bit of a cringe when I got curious.  I'm sure they are quite possibly very lovely people in certain settings, but when one thing I never enjoy finding out is just how much they write their powerful, infallible females to be the carbon copies of how they see themselves.  I unfollowed Hamilton on FaceBook because it was way too much cheese.  Nora Roberts is another one that does this, down to the damn outfit they wear.  Anne Rice is just guilty of the cringy period blood vampirism scene in Memnoch.  If you know me, you know experimental smut is good game for me, but it can absolutely fall flat.  We've all got our own kinks and such-- some just translate into 'no, thanks' according to taste.  I don't hate you ladies for it, by any means, but it just made me absolutely determined not to write myself into any story.  There will always be characters I can relate to, but I don't have the sort of ego to care about whether I am being represented in any way, shape, or form.

Stephen King is a one-man word mill and pretty 50/50 on the hits and miss for damn near everyone.  Can't fault him for both the passion to do it himself (no ghostwriting like a lot of famous authors pawn off) and the ability to take risks.  Because of this, I am also really cautious about seeing any of his movies or getting books without scouring reviews.  Personality wise, I feel his presence is part likable/part unlikable.  He doesn't mind bagging and throwing away the movie renditions of his books.  I think we can all admit that there's always room for improvement, but I find I lack respect for authors that participate in the shredding of their work.  I suppose you can afford to throw away fans by trashing their favorite books, but it's because of what he does with his artistic integrity that makes me not line up for his work, not because of any personal thing he's done.

So lots of examples here, but here's the question.  Why do people so thoughtlessly let the personality attach to the work?  Think of all the little ways people do this.  The excuses are always "I can get the same thing/something better elsewhere" or "I'll never give my money to someone who doesn't fall in line."  Okay, no one says that but that is the sentiment, no?  And no, they CAN'T always get something elsewhere.  For better or worse, there is only one Kanye West.  There might be 50 better places to buy fried chicken, but turning off the spigot to find a 'similar' artist just seems... pointless.  There are plenty of people that absolutely DO become attracted to an unpopular artist and sometimes just as stupidly to SPITE the people that snivel at their personal decisions.

Clearly, it's NOT everyone, but like the song Cult of Personality drives home, the zeitgeist is swayed by the gravitation of fans and rebels around some of the most nonsensical reasons. Sometimes people are successful for being loved, sometimes it becomes mainstream to reward someone for being largely unpopular.  

Stephen King once said (and I partially quote here): "Talent is as cheap as table salt." He said that what separates the successful from the unsuccessful is hard work. Although if you know me, I do think the second part of that sentiment always sounds really lazy and not well thought out.  There's that other ingredient that frustrates people because you can't do a damn thing to sway it and it's just plain luck.  Even 'work smart, not hard' is lazy.  Do you think if there was any way that an artist could predict the popularity of their work they wouldn't at least START with any old bestseller and then maybe coast on integrity, writing whatever they wanted or, fuck it all, living in the lap of luxury?  There are plenty of people with gobs of talent and hard, smart work that can't be a career artist because they just can't tap into that crazy zeitgeist.

Most writers want to encourage each other.  My foolproof advice is always 'do it because you just can't imagine doing anything else.'  I want to see people succeed, not just in their careers, but in finding their happiness.  

I'm not going to lie and say I don't get a little jealous when luck is on their side, but I will absolutely tell you I don't believe in better or worse.  I'm one of those people that hates being asked if I have a favorite anything because I normally don't.  I can't even list my top 10 favorite songs if I tried.  I don't think it's important to rank art to show how important your tastes are.  I have one of the most maddeningly eclectic music libraries.  I mean, really. Bluegrass, Korean pop, kid songs, pop hits, rap, R&B, punk, metal, classic, game soundtracks.  I even have a couple of country songs even though most country is garbage to my ears.  If I like something, I like it.  I don't like it because I should or because it's acceptable, any more than I would simply like it because I shouldn't or it's unpopular.  I generally do not trust the mainstream at all, but I don't swim downstream to run far, far away either.  

Believe it or not, I actually tried Twilight and 50 Shades before they gained popularity and when they did, I couldn't believe it.  I couldn't finish them they were so bad.  Nevertheless, I've never felt other people couldn't like it.  Another thing that is completely pointless, thinking you can judge how you'll like someone by how much of a carbon copy of YOU they are.  I have plenty of friends I share very different passions with and I would never require a significant other to be my clone.  I have found that the marriages and partnerships that are most successful are people that do have very separate tastes and lives.  They have this magnetism and respect for each other's differences and like each other more for the times they break off to explore those other aspects.  They aren't even more likely to cheat, believe it or not, because they aren't driving each other up the wall when they have been tolerant from the onset.

I hope this random scattering of thought (I do not frame ideas prior to blogging, as you have to be able to tell) sheds a little more awareness of how you choose things.  

Side Note: You ever notice how your sweet grandma gets a little fouler and freer with her thoughts over time?  I know this may sound crazy, but this is a display of wisdom.  They probably held their tongue on a lot of things, thinking acceptance was the most important thing to have.  Acceptance is a really hollow victory, people.  It's fragile, it's fleeting.  The backlash is often the mid-life crisis, the departure from the person you thought they were until they exploded in the opposite direction of who they actually wanted to be.  Live a life where you understand it's okay to be uncomfortable with how people will react to you.  Don't swallow all you want to be because you're afraid that being unpopular will ostracize you.  Even if it does, you'll weed out the bigots and find your people, similarly ostracized and WAY cooler than those assholes.

Tag, You're It!: Social Justice, the Bored Game

Have you ever decided to change the error of your ways as representative of whatever race, gender, non-choice consequence of birth, due to the insane assaults of social justice warriors?  Oh, you have?  Congratulations and fuck you, because that person doesn't exist.

I understand there is always a need for sensitivity in matters that you don't understand.  We should all acknowledge that everyone has a unique struggle, if this were a perfect world.  But in this shitstorm, we have people touting the value of individuality while shoving complete strangers in neat little boxes.

Hell, I used to find comfort with labels.  My many confused attempts to define my sexuality, my gender, my questionable ethnic make-up (one of these days, Ancestry.com, we're going to have a long talk)...  However, people now use those labels to define you for themselves.  Back the truck up, people, because that's not how personal labels were EVER supposed to work.  I can no longer use the word 'feminist'.  Once upon a time, that word opened a conversation where people might ask me what it means to me-- I would say it's about empowering myself not to conform to gender roles that still barely exist in the largely ignored cellars of western society.  It means I don't flail at the injustice of prejudice or setbacks.  I make myself impossible to ignore, using every damn outlet I can headbutt my way into.  I don't start hashtags and bully anyone out of the discussion even when they steer a little off-topic.  Yeah, it's annoying when we get that chip in our shoulder where we might say "well, what about this?"  There is no crime in threading off topic.  No one is entitled to join your vent session and kiss your ass.  You are not being silenced by letting someone have a voice.

I see it without ever trying to.  You'll get the one guy that takes a poor little victim story and actually shatters the argument with the fact, usually the duplicity or bias from the supposed victim.  I love that guy.  He is not saying that the invalidation of said article means no woman experiences harassment, but you would think that's what he's doing.  I'll take his back when the rabid ones start to bully him.  He doesn't need me to, but I think society also needs to stop spinning every fact checker as the villain.

Which brings this up-- I have never been 'one of the boys.' I've never been out to prove I'm a man or 'as good as one'.  My body is biologically female and I have never tried to fulfill female roles either.  I like to customized dolls and crochet, but I love dirty jokes and video games.  For the record, assignments or no, none of those things are gender exclusive.  There are plenty of men in the craft game, plenty of women in the sword-swinging, rage-quitting game.  No one ever needed to tell me that.  Believe me, plenty of people tried to pull the lady card on me and I've tossed it back and told them to keep the change.  I am not interested in competing with women or impressing men with how cool I am.  I'm a fucking geek and primping is too much work.  I have zero interest in gender politics because I embrace the tendencies and decisions regardless of biological inclination.  If you're a slave to society or just want to whine that you're not socially acceptable but should be, you're a pain in the ass and change starts within.  Join a cult-- they'll love you.

Not all social justice is this tainted, mind you, at least not completely.  I ran into problems with how women authors are marketed as opposed to their male counterparts and it does SEEM as if women are often signed on as a statistical requirement and then thrown under the bus.  Take these for example if you missed my former post: 

1. women are often openly encouraged to use initials in male-dominated genres (and I'm also aware that men do the same in the crime fiction genre that demands female writers-- they don't cancel each other out, weirdos...)
2. covers by female authors are often resembling the covers of romance novels.  In the fantasy genre, if a woman writes sex, they want to peg it as romance/erotica.  A man is never thrown under this bus.  This genre fuckery can kill its selling potential because epic/high fantasy is NOT romance.  It's a niche that some publishers do market, but it's a graveyard planting nerd lore in the general romance section.
3. last but not least, women are sometimes the problem.  I can't say on a case by case, but women are supposedly statistically less likely to protest creative decisions or salary shortage, to allow decisions against their best interests because they short-change their own worth.

I know I'm risking a shitstorm with that one, but I've seen and even been one of those women that doesn't look the fucking gift horse in the mouth.  You have to be your OWN advocate.  There is a good reason I don't speak for other people.  For one, I don't know your position and two, you didn't ask me to.  I will not hesitate to speak up for someone if they want to use my voice, but I don't assume every creature on this earth without a dick needs me to rescue them.  It's infantilizing.

So when I see these campaigns where people have the audacity to say that a man asking them to smile because it's pretty is sexual harassment and a call for social reform, I shut down.  I'm not raising my voice.  I'm not going to try to drown out that noise because when the cacophony dies down, I'm going to clear my throat, speak softly and use sense.

I absolutely hate the divides people are creating with words.  I have always used words to tackle my own frustrations, my fictions to reach people, and I will not waste my words by yammering about these pseudo-problems.  Assholes do not have a race, gender, religion or shoe size.  They exist everywhere and just like criminals don't follow laws, assholes are not the ones punished by social reform.  You're spinning strong people as victims and making victims afraid to call themselves strong.  How?  Because when a victim tries to call you on your shit and disagree, they are suddenly not victim enough to cower to your narrative.

Real talk, men were never 'my problem'.  I have been sexually harassed and assaulted by females too, folks.  It was never a gendered problem.  A male friend of mine confided that with today's sexual revolution, women are under the impression that they can touch a man however they want and they are just as likely to talk about a man's body in a way that would get a man's ass beat if he dared to say that to a woman.  Social reform isn't the answer, people.  We need to stop with the assumptions.  Pick your battles. People are watering down the power of words by getting offended, injecting insidious intent in every innocent comment.  

Yes, I do look pretty when I smile.  No, you don't have to be attractive for me to be flattered instead of creeped out.  On some days, you can probably even say 'wow, look at the breasts on this cunt' and I might not care.  I've got a twisted sense of humor and sometimes I can admit that your frustration does not always warrant me wasting my time being offended.  

I'm not going to justify these hypocritical movements of victim unity though.  I'm not going to wave some weird survivor flag either.  I don't need a trophy for overcoming adversity because the revelation was its own reward.  Just like when I finish a book.  Yeah, it's disappointing when they don't sell, but I keep writing.  The journey and the accomplishment speaks for itself.  I don't want a pity prize for participating in all the fucked-up and beautiful twists in life.  I don't need karma or retribution or reward, tit for tat, promises on life.  Expectations are the source of your misery, people.  Next time something doesn't go your way, try asking yourself 'what did you expect?'  

Don't feed the trolls.

Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200.

But muh diversity...

It's been whispered about in fantasy groups about the fiascos concerning the Hugo and Nebula awards and it's taken me some time to catch up on the politics of the situation.  I haven't yet reached the point where I feel some desperate need to collect these coveted writing awards, but the way I'm seeing grown adults bicker about it, I'm also in no hurry.

That sinister diversity agenda...  And I say this sarcastically because I don't see it as sinister, nor do I see it as an opportunity to vilify white men who are constantly being blamed for why diversity isn't being awarded.  I have to admit, I'm far too out of the loop in popular entertainment to weigh in on whether or not there is a conspiracy for or against diversity.  I can tell you that under no circumstances would I be okay with accepting an award just to be some politically correct token female.  I'd like to belive that I've earned it.

I've had the pleasure of reading some of NK Jemisin's blog (I even used her feminization post as a discussion point of my own) but not her Fifth Season book.  In the process of making my own books, I tried to limit my exposure to other work to write my own work.  Everything I've seen from her indicates someone dedicated to the craft and someone who has put in her paces.  She is not a "diversity or feminist" agenda writer.  She does not purposely use those facets of herself to sell books.  All that I have seen of hers even shows that she has even on occasion written for the market.  She doesn't appear to be setting out to wipe out and redefine the genre.  She is a true fan of the genre, she just has her own voice.

I'm not sure where to even weigh in on this.  Sure, the internet is full of racist, sexist, chose your -ist bigots, but I think there is also a lot of bigotry coming out of the social justice set.  There are absolutely people who champion diversity to the point of ignoring quality because there need to be x amount of this oppressed group for it to be objective. In an age of self-publishing, no one is being silenced here and anyone has the opportunity to use their keyboards to attempt masterpieces.

I get it-- the problem is no one is doing it and when anyone attempts it, they are more likely to become a poster child than to have their work looked at objectively.  It absolutely sucks that the quality of entertainment is going down because half-assed directors are trying to cash in on lukewarm ideas.  However, try as you might, you can't fault Jemisin.

I've seen her passion and she's diplomatic and professional.  She defines herself and she's not quick to see the worst in people. She is a part of a society that does not ban her from having a platform, even if there are plenty of ankle-biters accusing of her of something sinister.  Meanwhile, you get these obvious groups trying to game an awards system and telling everyone how to vote.  I can't say for certain without interjecting a bias that I can't conclusively say exists, but they assume that sales or so-called fan feedback somehow shows she falls short of deserving a nomination let alone an award.

Maybe you haven't heard but Amazon is currently being plagued with fake books, people using click farms to cash in on the pages-read system, and false accounts made to plant reviews.  Insofar, the only thing they've been able to police is author-swaps where authors agree to read each other's work and write reviews.  Which I think is a terrible thing to forbid.  Not only can authors establish a rapport and trust with others who understand artistic integrity, but it assumes that all of them will only post favorable or false reviews in exchange for their beta reads.  So things like sales and exposure aren't reliable numbers to determine either quality or who deserves it more.  It's just more gaming the system.

Diversity is always a hot button issue but the truth is, we don't need more agendas.  We need more artists to write what ignites their passion.  We need to consider all things based on their own merits.  Don't read my books just because I'm a woman; read them because I told a damn good story.  

I don't need a hugbox or a safe space.  I've come to the point I am in life because of what I've overcome.  I am who I am because life isn't fair.  I'm never going to accept any societal norm that says someone is better than someone else or demean someone's struggle because 'there are more important things.' that's the way I have always been.  I don't care who you are-- if I can help you, I will, provided you don't feel entitled to it. I don't tolerate disrespect.  I am not going to come on the internet and champion everyone who is perceived to have some disadvantage.  Assuming others need you to speak for them is assuming they are too inferior to do so.  I will stand with someone while they defend themselves but they have a voice.  Also, tell me to shut up and you'll probably be next on my shit list.  Even if you're right, silencing me just lost my vote.

I truly don't know what to think of all the generalizations these days.  When I use a general statement, I like to try to reiterate that I'm painting with a broad strokes and it does not speak for anything but a specific majority that does fit it.  It's like clothes off the rack though.  Some of us don't have off the rack bodies and you're even less likely to find an off the rack mind.

By all means, encourage your friend that thinks their ideas aren't marketable to publish anyway.  Just don't belittle their work by reducing it to propaganda.  Propoganda is so much toilet paper and everyone deserves better.