RWA and the Diversity (Maybe) Apocalypse

Like Jeffe, my brain has been largely consumed by the conflict, hurt, and brokenness that appears to be the much-loved national organization of romance writers - and org I *thought* was actually committed to diversity and inclusion.

The past weeks have disabused a lot of people of that notion. Stay away from the Facebook page. I'm told it's a cesspool of people celebrating the fact that a huge number of marginalized authors no longer feel safe and have left RWA. It's bad. The moniker being tossed around online is no longer 'Romance Writers of America'. It's 'Racist Writers of America'. That's hard to swallow. Really hard. And I hate it. I hate that people who've felt ignored and hurt for so long have suffered, for them, what amounts to a mortal blow. All that work. All that trust. Shattered. Jeffe offers up good timeline tweets that sum up the issues, though as you pick a hashtag to dig into, you'll find the pool of gross goes much deeper.

So now what?

What's a neuro-atypical, CIS het-presenting white woman like me gonna do with that? Whelp. I figure it this way. White women made this mess. I'm here to be on the clean up crew. I can stare my privilege straight in the eye and use it as a crow bar. If boards need voting in or out to muck the most egregious offenses and offenders out of the organization, I'm good with it. Author Keri Stevens is doing a group read of White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo on Twitter (it's her pinned post on her profile - find it here.) I'm joining in on that so I can dig into the dark places in my own psyche where unexamined attitudes and behaviors may need eviction.

It's a new year. We most of us contemplate how to become better humans at this time of year. This is my first step. Get after cleaning up this mess, if it's possible. We've seen it happen. SFWA's been through this before us. As John Scalzi (I was gonna link you to the tweet, but you know, this dude is a riot so if you aren't already following him, for shame. Fix that.) so rightly pointed out, the way forward was to kick out the racists. Which is the exact opposite of what RWA has done. So. We'll see. The work will be hard. It may fail. I only know I have to be here to try.

Why I'm Sticking with RWA

I'm getting back into the groove following a lovely Christmas holiday in Tucson with my family. I didn't take my laptop, and even read a paper book, staying pretty much offline except for the occasional Instagram post.

It was relaxing and restorative.

When I returned online Friday morning, 12/26, I fell face-first into the the RWA crisis. Since our topic at the SFF Seven this week is whatever is on our minds... well, I don't have much on my mind besides this.

There's a great deal online about it. If you don't know anything, this is a good run-down of the timeline. It's the best I've seen, though I hesitated to link to it because I don't like how Claire frames the situation with words like "implosion," "collapse," and "dinosaurs."

I don't think RWA is coming to an end, despite the almost gleeful predictions of it.

I do think this situation has exposed a number of massive problems. Not to be glib or pollyanna, I see this as a crisis/opportunity.

Yes, systemic racism is, has been, and continues to be a major issue within RWA. Despite concerted strides to correct the problems - with recent significant progress being made - it seems that policies and embedded practices in the organization have allowed a racist, exclusionary mindset to persist. In this particular situation, we've also run afoul of a cult of personality and a personal feud that led to Policies & Procedures being altered and bypassed to pursue a particular vendetta.

Former president (and all-around amazing person) Helen Kay Dimon laid out recommended steps in this tweet thread. I fully support those steps. I think that, if we are brutally thorough, we can get the ship cleaned up and back on course.

RWA has been very good to me. I know it hasn't been for everyone, but I owe a great deal to the organization When I joined as a newbie fiction author in 2007, RWA gave me all the tools to help me in my new career. I want RWA to be that for everyone. That's why I'm not abandoning ship. I'm offering my help to do whatever needs to be done - and I think the next few weeks will be key - so I really hope we can succeed. I don't believe RWA is a dinosaur. I think the organization can be better and do better.

I'm staying as long as there's hope.

I Think I Stepped in the Racism.

Jeffe’s post this week gave you the low down on the latest upheaval to hit Romance Writers of America. It’s been on my mind this week, so here’s more. It isn’t likely to be pretty.

In among this difficult and deeply necessary conversation about how marginalized our AOC and LGBTQA authors are, there are people knee-jerk protesting that they aren’t racist! They CAN’T be racist or biased, even though (or maybe especially when) AOC and LGBTQA authors point out racist and biased language and behavior. So let’s do a little clarification. Starting with the hard stuff.

Hi. I’m Marcella and I’m a racist. I don’t want to be a racist, but I was reared in a society STEEPED in racism. Predicated on it. It’s woven through every aspect of US culture to the point that  the US Government just sued Facebook for housing discrimination because FB’s adverts allowed someone to specifically include or exclude certain demographic groups. Basically, you could target your ads to be seen only by people of a specific ethnic background. And no one stood up in that massive tech company to suggest that was maybe a really bad (possibly prosecutable) idea.

I get that when someone says ‘racist’, we all immediately think of the people who mean it. They’re the people who willfully hold specific, hateful views about anyone who doesn’t look like they do. Surely, if we don’t mean to be racist, we aren’t, right? Right? We’re absolved? If only it worked that way. Our culture made it impossible for us to be anything other than racist. Before you lose heart and click away, I actually do have some positives here. Starting with: There’s basis for this stuff in evolutionary biology, which means there’s also something we can do about it.

Humans are wired for tribalism. Us versus them. It was a resources game. It was an issue of who was going to get that last apple off the tree before the blizzard hit. Who ate, survived. Who survived, passed on genes. Grouping up with a tribe of ‘us’ made fighting the tribe of ‘them’ easier and assured greater access to resources. As the human animal evolved, the definition of tribe evolved and broadened a little. We never lost that Us vs Them wiring. It’s still there nestled in the oldest parts of our brains. It’s at the root of racist, biased behaviors. (You can look this stuff up, but be warned. Most of the research is around issues of genocide. It is not light reading which is why I am not linking it in.) BUT. Somewhere in there, we gained a prefrontal cortex and the ability to analyze ourselves, our surroundings and our behaviors. It’s also the part that allows us to identify opportunities for growth and change. It allows us to detach from ego, take a step back and examine our own emotions and actions. That’s incredibly powerful when it’s applied. The trick is to apply it. To think.

When someone says ‘hey, what you said is racist’ your primitive brain is hearing a threat to your survival. That’s primitive brain registering that you had been an ‘us’ and with this call out, you’ve just been made ‘them’. It’s firing off all these DANGERDANGER signals. It takes the modern brain a second longer to process the information, put the brakes on the emotions, and parse through the examination. ‘Really? Was what I said racist? Oh crap, maybe . . .’

So before I go on when I should be finishing and delivering an edit, here’s the summary. The primitive part of your brain is wired to be a racist asshole. Our culture played on that and indoctrinated all of us in racist structures. The newer part of your brain, y'know, the part you're supposed to think with and evaluate your own behavior with, that’s wired to gate the primitive brain. Let it. Quit saying 'I'm not a racist!' The minute you say that you’re operating from that primitive brain. Nice way of saying you're only semi-conscious. Of course you’re a racist. So am I. Welcome to the stinky, awful club. None of us can help ourselves get or do better until we admit and examine our own behavior. This includes listening to people when they speak of the hurt they’re suffering. It’s a simple thing to buy, read, and review books by AOC and LGBTQA authors. Guys, the last book by a woman of color that I read on purpose was in college. That’s crap. I want to do better than that. I want the playing field leveled for authors who have marginalized for too long. And I can start with me.

There are so many experiences in the world. So many voices. We’re authors. We specialize in voice and in creating experiences for our readers. There’s no good reason to shy away from broadening our own experiences as readers. You have the power to decide who and what you want to be – someone mired in the past or someone agitating for fairness by boosting our romance-writing siblings of every color and identity. Choice. Adaptation. Those are the gifts of thinking.  

Cover Reveal, the RITA® Awards and Boring the Reader

Cover Reveal!!

So, my novella, THE DRAGONS OF SUMMER, which first appeared (and still appears) in the SEASONS OF SORCERY anthology is a finalist in the RITA® Awards! The amazing Ravven had only just completed the cover - and we'd been planning to release the standalone story in April - but we seized the opportunity to put that shiny silver Finalist medallion on the cover and we'll be releasing the stand alone story any minute now. I'm even doing a print edition for you paper purists. 

Since our topic at the SFF Seven this week is the open "On My Mind," I feel like I should say, also, that I share the concern about the RITA Awards recognizing diverse authors. It's a difficult place to be - wanting to celebrate that this story, which I truly love, received this wonderful recognition - while being aware that the finalists include only four authors of color (AOC) and no Black authors.

There is, without a doubt, bias in judging. Reading is always subjective to begin with. Worse, within RWA and the judging pool, there are judges with conscious and unconscious biases. Racism and homophobia absolutely come into play. From personal experience, I can confirm that THE EDGE OF THE BLADE, my book with a dark-skinned pansexual heroine, received a 4/10 from one RITA judge - the lowest score any of my books has ever received from any judge in this contest. This book is the sequel to THE PAGES OF THE MIND, which finaled for an won a RITA that year. I seriously doubt the judge who gave the book a 4 found that it was badly written compared to the others. Sure, that lowest score got dropped. (Five judges read and rank each book; the highest and lowest scores are dropped.) But if two judges impose that kind of bias, that can severely sabotage a book's overall score. Even the "I just didn't connect with the characters" syndrome can lower a book's score by a critical 1 point.

So, what do we do? A lot of people are working on this. I absolutely support the RWA Board's continued efforts to rectify this problem. The current Board of Directors is a diverse - color, gender, and orientation - and committed group who absolutely want to solve this problem. They have been working on it. Unfortunately, correcting this kind of systemic bias occur on the societal equivalent of geologic time. There are a lot of moving parts and ingrained attitudes that need correcting. I'm hearing a lot of "burn the RITAs to the ground" and even "burn RWA to the ground," and I don't agree with either solution. When you burn things to the ground you get a lot of scorched earth. I fully believe we can make this change - and the fire of all this passionate involvement can be rocket fuel rather than lighter fluid. 

On another note, because I promised a few people, I want to follow up on my post from last week on what I think is bad writing advice: "If you're bored, the reader will be, too." James said the following day that he disagreed, but he also didn't understand my point. He said he hates being bored as a reader. Well, of course! I never said it was okay to bore the reader.

What I said was that it's not valid to conflate the author experience with the reader one. 

The reverse situation proves this point: that what the author finds fascinating is not necessarily what will fascinate the reader. Witness the common mistake where a writer does a bunch of in-depth research - and then can't resist throwing it all into the book. This is such a pervasive phenomenon that "the overly researched historical novel" has been a category in the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest for an atrocious opening sentence to a hypothetical bad novel. 

That's part of why I think "If the writer is bored, the reader will be, too" is such bad advice, because it implies that as long as the writer is having fun, so will the reader.

And this is SO NOT TRUE.

Of course no writer wants to bore the reader - and a great deal of craft goes into ensuring this doesn't happen. How can an author know? Experience, refining the craft, listening to valid feedback. (The valid part is really important - you have to learn who to take seriously.) But a writer cannot assume that their subjective writing experience will translate to the reader's experience. 

Learning to communicate our stories so the reader receives something of what we hope to tell is a lifelong effort in refining voice and craft. 

On Being Afraid to Speak Up

Yesterday, on July 2, 2016, Elie Wiesel died. He was a Nobel Peace Prize Winner and a celebrated writer who brought to life the realities of the Holocaust.

On the same day, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump ran this ad:

Note the use of the Star of David for the speech bubble. An hour later, he changed it to a circle:

It wasn't an accident. No one - especially a publicist in a presidential campaign - accidentally uses an enormously fraught symbol of race and religion.

I read Elie Wiesel's The Gates of the Forest in college, as part of my religious studies major. It's been on my shelf ever since. The protagonist is no hero. In fact, he's weak. He allows others to sacrifice themselves so he can live and he ultimately commits a craven act of betrayal. We had extensive class debates on his motivations. I see it as fear. He was afraid - justifiably so - and let fear run his life.

Our topic this week, appropriately enough, is "The Politics of Writing."

Now, I know that many, many writers will advise staying away from politics. We hand that around a lot. Don't mention personal politics on social media because we don't want to alienate readers. People who disagree with our politics might no longer buy our books.

But isn't that fear?

Writers have a long history of being vitally involved in political and social change. I'll give you a hint: Elie Wiesel didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating a treaty or arranging food for the poor. It was for his books.

There's a famous poem by Martin Niemöller which has been perhaps overdone to the point of invisibility. It's also been modified and co-opted numerous times. But it captures an essential truth:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

It's been since criticized because Niemöller admitted to his own antisemitism (for which he later apologized) and for the way it frames social responsibility in terms of self-interest. However, it does speak powerfully to the complicity of those who stood by during the Holocaust and to the idea that we can safely refrain from exposing ourselves to difficulty - including people not buying our books - because the problem doesn't relate exactly to us.

Which is cowardly, isn't it?

In some ways, it's fascinating that we're at this place now, where writers advise each other to stay away from politics. As if money is more important than anything else. I'm not talking about agitating over Democrats vs. Republicans.

I'm talking about standing by while the religious and racial persecution of other groups is openly discussed as a viable political position.

Something to ponder.