Perils of the Writer: Getting Your Politics into your SFF

I don't usually bring up real-world politics here.  I might be something of a rare bird in this industry, in that I'm on friendly terms with people with vastly varying political leaning.  People who I disagree with, even vehemently.  And don't get me wrong, I do love occasionally getting into it, politically speaking, as long as it's a good argument, and not just yelling, "You're wrong!" back and forth.

Partly, I don't bring up politics because-- especially within political things that cross with SFF writing-- by the time I know something is going on and people are talking about it, someone-- usually Scalzi, Wendig or Hines-- has more or less already said what I feel, and said it better than I would have.  We don't need another white guy going "Oh, me too, because my opinion is important!"  I stay out of it because you don't need me to weigh in on it.  I will if asked, but otherwise, I'll just listen.

However, I mostly don't talk about my personal politics here because it really doesn't reflect on what I write.  Even Way of the Shield, easily my most "political" work, doesn't necessarily reflect any specific political view as "right" or "wrong".  In fact, if any eventual reader does take a specific political message from it, that's more a reflection of their read than my intent.  But if they find something, great.  Subtext is best when it's unintentional.

But some writers aren't like that.  Some wear their politics right on their sleeves, especially in their work.  And that can be great.  Or it can be horrible.*  But I'm kind of the opinion, if you want to write that sort of thing, that's what opinion columns in the newspaper are for.  As fiction, it tends to be uninteresting.

And some wear their politics so proudly, it becomes their public persona.  That's your right, of course, but Freedom of Speech only prevents the government from shutting you up.  It doesn't stop people from thinking you're a jerk.

But let's not confuse politics for behavior.

Because there are plenty of people-- people on the far left and far right, frankly-- who gleefully act like assholes, and then when called on that behavior, use their political affiliation as a shield.  "Oh, you're coming after me because of my beliefs!"  Terms like "witch hunt" are used, because it's easier to hide behind that, make yourself a victim, instead of acknowledging: hey, I'm acting like an asshole.

It's so much easier to act like you're being persecuted.

But if you act like an asshole-- and believe me, I've been there: back in my twenties I'm sure I had some Grade A moments-- people will and should call you on it, and it's disingenuous to say it's because of your politics.  You know why?  Because I know people with the same political lean who aren't assholes, so it's clearly not some sort of obligatory behavior based on political opinion.

I am all for people wearing their politics on their sleeves.  And put it in your fiction.  Have your fiction be a full-on polemic; rip your political opinion off your sleeve and shove it down my throat.  Politics I agree with, politics I don't agree with.  Go full out.

So, without pointing fingers or getting into too many details, here's two things that have stood out to me:

1. I've noticed that the kind of people who are complaining that SF is "getting too political" and "politics shouldn't enter into it" are the very same people who can't seem to make a blog post or Facebook entry without being highly political, including actively attacking people who don't have the same politics.

2. People who complain about having to be "politically correct" tend to be people who want to be jerks.  Let me tell you a secret about "political correctness".  Do you know what it really is?  It's not calling people something they don't want to be called.  That's it.  If doing that is something you've got a real problem with, then you should take a look at yourself and decide what kind of person you want to be.  If the answer is, "I want to be a jerk and piss people off", then fine. Own that shit.  But also own the consequences.  Don't act like you can be that guy and also be surprised that you generate some ire for it.

So that's my main thing: talk the smack, if that's you want to do.  But don't be surprised if it smacks you back.

---
*- For the record, I've read fiction on both sides of the political spectrum that I've found eye-rollingly absurd.

Politics of Writing

I struggled with this post. I don't publicly do' politics,as in the US political system and the varied views within it. I tried to craft a post about the politics OF writing, of getting published despite not having the right bits to join the "good ol' boys' club."  I considered the changing face of conventions --specifically their harassment policies. Neither of those topics are ones I feel are my forte. I have opinions, I have stories/experiences, but they are mine and what points are there to prove are also mine.

So...I read a lot of blogs, partially read even more blogs, and rolled my eyes at an enormous amount of things that showed up in my various search results.

I found these interesting enough to share for the sake of consideration:

On the topic of race, I offer for your perusal this blog post written by Robyn McGee:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/02/10/the-overwhelming-whiteness-of-the-publishing-industry/

On the topic of gender, I offer for your perusal this blog post written by Michele Willens:

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/the-mixed-results-of-male-authors-writing-female-characters/273641/

On the topic of religion, I offer for your perusal this wikipedia page: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_ideas_in_science_fiction

Social Politics of Writing Fiction

The social politics of writing fiction extends beyond the page, beyond the rounds of edits and publishing. It's a necessity of marketing and sales. It's the joys of peer networking and consumer reach. It's navigating participation in a community without sticking your foot in a steaming pile.

Traditionally when we think of genre authors and politics, we think of the rebels we aspire to be--authors whose stories permeated the public consciousness to the point of affecting real-world change. Our passions about a certain topics or themes provoke our need to write about social injustice, climate change, agri-business, religion, war, etc. We start our stories with the state of what is then weave a tale around what could be. Cautionary or inspirational, often it's both. It doesn't matter if the story suits a publisher's business model. It matters only that we're planting a seed to make a total stranger explore a different point of view. It's long been the place of genre authors to expose government hypocrisies and to speak up as harbingers against complacency through fiction. What great company to want to keep, right?

However...

The fertile bed of social politics can turn against authors when it becomes the censor of creativity. We're currently in the throes of a resurgence in pre-print censorship. There are a lot of opinionated voices given platforms via social media and the Con circuits dictating what authors are "allowed" to write based on the characteristics of the author. Some of those voices are angry, some are well-intentioned, and some exemplify the behaviors they seek to quash. This has given rise to a tide of shaming authors for daring to write something other than "what they know...first hand." Far beyond the usual critical review that dismantles the book, this trend goes after the author for being "unqualified" to write particular aspects of fiction. It's a tragedy because too many stories that fill the narrative need aren't being submitted because of the social politics and the bullies feigning authority.

Authors, be confident in your story. Submit. Publish. Don't let social politics limit your imagination or your ambition.

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.

Never Skip The Editor

I don't have any official set of Rules for Developmental Editors to share because I go on my own quirky authorial journey but professional editing is a MUST, and a step I'd never skip. The author will never perceive all the holes and things that could be done better in their own book because they're too close to the story and the characters and the words.

Some examples:

I have a tendency to be impatient and want to get to writing my favorite scenes NOW, so especially in early books, my editor had to make me stop and write about the journey the characters were on. I used to end up adding about 10,000 words each time. There are a few extra incidents on the boat trip in Warrior of the Nile, as well as in Magic of the Nile, and a dramatic river crossing in Mission to Mahjundar, none of which would have existed without the insistence of an editor. And the scenes aren't there to make the manuscript longer - I'm not getting paid by the word like Charles Dickens. They're in the story to help the readers connect better with the characters, to add details to the worldbuilding and to slow down my headlong rush to DRAMA. If you don't take time to do the buildup, the big scenes don't really pay off emotionally. In each case the editor of record made suggestions and then I wrote the scenes that came to my mind as the author.

I also have a tendency - because I know it's all going to turn out okay at the Happily Ever After - to let my characters become tourists a bit at key moments. I have one spot in a book I'm not going to identify, where a hero's life is in the balance and in the early drafts, I had the heroine and  the best friend admiring artwork in an ancient temple and speculating on whether certain ancient aliens had been there...and my editor basically said, "Are you KIDDING me??? The hero is dying, we don't know what's going to happen next, if he can even be saved, and these people are admiring the walls?!" Oh, okay, point made.

Then there was the invisible creature who left a visible trail....

I add in a child character every time - it's almost like a reflex with me, maybe because I'm a mother...and you just don't need a child in every book...if you can remove a character with no disturbance in the plot, you really did not need that character, cute or not.

I think I've confessed enough tendencies today LOL, gotta keep some of my dark secrets, but the point is, my editor makes me aware of these things and I've made progress in not doing them in the first place any more. She finds new things in each book though, and her suggestions make the stories stronger.

She also tells me what works for her and compliments certain plot twists and turns of phrase, which makes me smile and feel good, but I crave the other stuff, so I can make the book as good as possible before putting it in front of my readers.

And I owe her the next manuscript by the end of today, so I'd better get back to it!

The Editorial Paragon

It's once again that time of year in the Pacific Northwest - amazing shows as the light dies at 10PM. We don't always get killer sunsets, but when we do, they make up for lost time. Entire showy epics crammed into a half an hour. It's one of the things about this latitude that I value - the between times last for damned ever. Twilight is measured in hours in the summer. So is dawn. The fact that I love that probably means I fall on some kind of pathological scale somewhere.

This week, (since I missed last week - I am SO sorry) we're talking up editors. I absolutely advocate for finding and clinging to a good editor. Because:

1. A good editor will call you on your bullshit. Let's be honest. When I write, I am so close to a story. It's my baby. I am incapable of objectively looking at it and saying aloud, "Man, you ugly." So I pay someone who will point out the misshapen arc. The half-formed character. The utter and appalling lack of conflict in that scene near the end.
2. HOWEVER. A good editor will also point out what's good in my work, what's working. This isn't just me needing ego stroking. Though pets are nice. The markers of what works gives me sign posts by which I can fix what doesn't work.
3. A good editor will occasionally make suggestions - "Hey, I think you knew what you meant in this scene, and I think this scene is complete in your head. It just didn't make it to paper. I could see adding x, y, and/or z. What do you think?"
4. A good editor communicates in a way that I can process (now, granted, it is incumbent upon me to be professional and easy to work with - no histrionics, no diva-ing. Everything is in service to making a story better.) This requirement is 100% subjective. Only you know when you're in the communication groove with someone, but it is worth pursuing. You should never wonder what it is an editor wants when you're going through your dev edit notes.

So how do you find such a paragon? Ask who edits the books you like. I found the developmental editor for Damned If He Does (did I mention that's available for preorder and comes out July 19??) via Jeffe. I'd seen the editorial work this editor had done on Jeffe's books and I liked the things she called out. So when the time came, I asked for a referral. Author loops are another great place to get suggestions for editors who know your genre and your market. Then it becomes a question of checking websites, emailing back and forth, and getting a sense of how well you understand one another via the written word (since 99% of all communication will be in email or in an editorial letter.)

And once everything is said and done, don't forget to credit your editor. It's often a thankless job, telling writers the baby needs a makeover.

What My Editor Has Done For Me

There is a big question out there of what, exactly, and editor does, and what makes a good one.  This is especially true when people are, say, considering who to vote for in the Best Editor, Long Form category in the Hugos-- a category that my editor, Sheila Gilbert, is nominated for.

So, just this week I had a long conversation with Sheila, mostly about my draft for The Imposters of Aventil.  This book is the third Thorn book, and it's also the midpoint in what I'll call "Phase I" of my over all Maradaine plan.  It's the first book where the integrated elements of the various Maradaine series show come into play.

So Sheila has to walk something of a balance act in helping me with the development.  She has to be able to fundamentally get what I'm doing and what I want to accomplish, while at the same time maintain enough outsider perspective to see if the pieces I'm placing make sense and I'm not just in my head.  She pulls at the loose threads and asks me what I'm going to do with those.  She keeps me on the big picture and on the details.

Which, for a book like Imposters, which is the biggest thing I've done so far, in many ways, is so crucial.

(Don't worry-- it's longer than the other books, but it's FAR from a doorstopper.)

Without that kind of editing, I wouldn't be able to do everything I want to do.

So now, I have to get back to doing it.  These books don't write themselves.  (Or re-write. Or edit. Or proof.)

Developmental Editors

Developmental editors are a thing?

When did this become a thing?

I want one.

Guess I can't really write much of a post about something I didn't know about.