Marx's Loophole

 So, I mentioned in a previous article that I've been agonizing over leftist infighting issues for - well - a few years now. Despite the sharp tone of my previous posts and some others, it should be noted that I don't hate modern communists - in fact, I generally agree with a lot of their aims (with the exception of the small number of dictator apologists). I am, however, significantly more comfortable around people who talk about democratic socialism and who generally aren't demanding a one-party state, because of my previously stated vehement opposition to totalitarianism. 

But today, I want to take a stab at a greatly revered dead old white male theorist's basic ideas. This is another article I've been considering for some time, but I'm going to endeavour to make it less lengthy and meandering than my last release. (Especially because I'm not entirely sure most of my readers are here for extended musings on political theory from an admitted non-expert.) 

In a nutshell, then, Marxism doesn't work and is incomplete, and we on the left need to stop making everything try to fit its exact circumscriptions. 

There are two relatively simple reasons why I would put this relatively obvious theory forward, and they both come down to the scientific fact that we are social animals. 

Money represents attention; both represent power

In other social species, such as chickens, chimpanzees, bonobos, or dolphins, hierarchies naturally develop. Before I learned about more of the basic concepts of anarchism, I thought it was devoted to resisting hierarchies under all circumstances, which struck me as innately ridiculous. How could one organize and get anything done without some kind of chain of command? Then I found out that the point was destroying unjust and entrenched hierarchies, which made more sense - but is still a tricky proposition.

The thing is, as anyone who's spent five minutes on the leftist internet will tell you, those hierarchies will recapitulate themselves, even without monetary incentives. Memes and art are shared freely, as is fanfiction, and that certainly supports the idea that resources are being artificially restricted from the public by the actions of the wealthy and their corporations - but the people who produce these things and the algorithms that promote and share them are not created equal. Unjust hierarchies are not only bone-deep, but are inevitably recycled, even when they're reversed. Attention is a form of currency and exchange because it represents power; money also represents power. But trying to remove power from human society and interactions is like trying to run a battery without electricity. 

The most we can do is try to redistribute power as equitably as possible, while working intentionally to compensate for historical and present-day injustices. I don't believe there will ever be an end point, because new injustices will happen as the world progresses - but trying to compensate for them brings improvements, and a better world. The alternative is to just try and embrace the inequality, which is pretty much the thesis of fascism - and if you haven't gotten the idea from my other articles, fascism is bad. Not only that, it's fundamentally unsustainable and precarious. Even if it didn't lead to suffering and injustice, it wouldn't work. But communism as depicted in Marx's writings doesn't exactly work either, because of this whole power and imbalance thing I keep talking about.

The fight for justice will never end

It is vitally important, even required, resist and break down unjust hierarchies, even the most entrenched. As stated previously, I don't support attempting this with violence, but resisting and protesting fascists is also a form of societal self-defense. Being present at white supremacist rallies discourages them, because fascism is fundamentally a belief requiring cowardice. 

Unfortunately, despite their many flaws, democracies are the best system we've come up with for self-determination thus far. It seems like fascism is, rather than a one-time event, cyclical. One thing that Star Wars (I know, shut up, hear me out) represents well is that democracies are always going to be susceptible to fascism and predatory conservatism. But the alternative is totalitarianism, and that, we must fight. As Benjamin Franklin put it, "A republic, gentlemen - if you can keep it." 

There is no "one last person to take resources from and then we can yeet into the beautiful future" stage. There is no socialist paradise. It's like the stuff in the New Testament about building the Kingdom of God on earth, and which leftist christians understand as being "hey not being a dick is a continuous process." There will be no messianic Revolution where All the Bad People Die and the Rest of Us get to live in Egalitarian Heaven. 

(I'm not Christian, but I do really like ex-Christian and leftist Christian media; it's been good for my spiritual health.)

Can we have a beautiful future? I don't know, but we can certainly try to make now better. The healthier our democracies and systems become, the more resilient they'll be to the next wave of fascist or conservative backlashes. 

Humanity will never be able to stop trying to balance altruism and self-interest. Even if we damage the planet to the point that we struggle to inhabit it, I very much doubt that we'll actually go extinct. However, if we refuse the temptation to discard the tools at hand, and use our cracked, damaged systems to their fullest extent, we stand more than a snowball's chance in hell of conquering our worst instincts and remedying historical and present atrocities. 

Source.

And yes, I know she's called "Tank Girl," and that modern-day dictator apologists are known as "tankies," but the point still stands.

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

The Horseshoe's Penumbra

People who've read The Meaning Wars series might recall that in book 2, The Stolen: Two Short Stories, the novella "Wordthieves" depicts a society that has some of the trappings of leftist and liberal groups - meditation, organic food, yoga, vegetarianism, basic housing and healthcare - yet behaves like Christian extremists. To wit, they exert behavioural control over members, demand obedience and a lack of questioning, 

Part of my goal with this was to vent frustration at the controlling behaviour and culture present in the Health Sciences faculty I was studying in, under a now (thankfully) deposed Department Head. The other purpose of the depiction was to criticize an unsettling behaviour I noticed - the way the trappings of the left and liberals (yoga, vegetarianism, Buddhist iconography, incense, crystals, etcetera) sometimes came with behaviour that matched oppressive philosophical standards from the right - name, Christian Evangelical-style refusal to countenance criticism. In other words, people could get real defensive about their spirituality and lifestyles, and be strangely hostile to science in ways that I normally encountered at the hands of casual Christian extremists (aka members of the Canadian Bible belt). I figured it was because changing one's external beliefs doesn't unteach the behavioural standards of the restrictive religious culture. 

What's the difference between a leftist and a liberal, anyway?

It would be easier to define this answer if it wasn't for the vicious and contemptuous purity-testing present among segments of the left. The broad left is fractious, rowdy, and often disagrees with itself to the point of self-parody. Never mind extreme standards of orthodoxy; merely forging an orthodoxy from the heterodoxy can be difficult at best. Certain stances, like the idea of universal healthcare, education, childcare, and reproductive rights access are popular; however, the manner in which these things can be accomplished is often an issue of great debate. The uplifting of voices of marginalized groups is held as important; exactly who gets to speak when, and who is most correct or most important in a given circumstance, is often the kind of debate topic that ruins friendships. (This is not a joke; I've seen it happen, and it's a lot less funny when it happens to you.) 

Some seek to reference historical applications of the term. During the Cold War, being "liberal" and "conservative" meant supporting capitalism over communism. The links between "economic freedom" and personal control/totalitarianism were forged in iron - even though the totalitarian governments self-proclaimed as communist were no more "communist" than buffalo wings are derived from bison. It's impossible to ignore history, the way neo-liberalism in the 80s meant doing your own thing and making money as a goal, trying to accrue power despite the cost - yet also being a global citizen, open to new experiences, and boldly expressing self-determination. 

Trying to map the old standards onto the modern ones badly ignores how much things have changed in the last forty-odd years. A common insult in certain parts of Twitter (and now Discord instead of Facebook, I assume) is to call someone a "liberal," which basically implies that said person is capitulating to the State, to false prophets, 

or isn't radical enough. It's supposed to be a reference to neo-liberalism of the 80s - but in context, it often makes little sense when held up against that criteria. 

Use a better word, please

I'd also like to talk about something related - the infamous, often contested Centre. Here's the thing - when I pop my head out of the leftist stronghold spaces I tend to prefer online, and talk to people who are less inclined to, say, anarchism, or at least radical restructuring, I've noticed that I keep not meeting any centrists. People who hold some sort of bland, mythical centrist stance don't actually exist. "But Nancy Pelosi and Justin Trudeau!" some might cry. Improper commitment to progressive ideas does not equate to actually believing in some kind of weird lukewarm centre. Outside of politics, "centrists" or divided voters tend to have a mixture of viewpoints that pull them in different directions. Some leftists consider reaching out to the centre useless, but experts on cults and conversion suggest that outreach - as much as it can be exhausting - is better than waiting for the far right to do the reaching out, as we saw with QAnon, which successfully radicalized former Obama voters. 

Source

We're not so different, you and I...

However, it's worth considering who the left would prefer to ally with - the "centrists" or the most extreme radicals. 

Leftist Twitter, Facebook, and other circles have some morally questionable corners; that's not surprising in any group, but can still be upsetting. The embrace of Stalinism and Maoism by young Americans, even queer ones, is baffling in some ways. The calls for violence crop up repeatedly - as do praise for gun culture and self-defense. I've voiced discomfort with leftist retaliatory battle cries before. 

Nowadays, frankly, I'm far more comfortable with saying "eat the rich!" and "all cops are bastards" because I understand more about how entrenched oppression works. Shaming cops and trying to unnerve the very wealthy are a little different from actually organizing, say, a raid on Jeff Bezo's private compound. There, I draw the line. I've whimpered in the past about fears of the left taking on the extreme right's tactics because "we're better and won't be corrupted" - but what actually happens is just that the extreme right gains new members. 

Here's why I wouldn't recommend the latter category. I've spent a few years now trying to research and keep an eye on extremist leftist groups - the tiny, tiny number of people who believe that Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro and the Kims of North Korea have been wronged by history. While it's undeniable that the CIA undermined socialist democracies in South America and Europe, and one can say that sure, some of these revolutionary leaders had good ideas, the totalitarian regimes that eventually came to power should not be apologized for. The fact that Churchill was a racist does not excuse the anti-Semitism, homophobia, and Ukrainian genocide caused by Joseph Stalin. 

For a long time, I've tried to figure out how to write an article saying both that this small group of people is pretty much insignificant online, and that they should be watched carefully in case their beliefs leach into the wider left. I noticed that wandering through a series of Leftbook pages - fan pages that support far, far left beliefs - there was a surprising amount of apologia for the dictators mentioned above, as well as gun adoration and what looked an awful lot like vague calls to violence. 

Trying to question individual leftists about these things resulted in a sort of foot-dragging annoyance in the responses. "So are you willing to actually launch a raid on a billionaire's compound?" I demanded. "And if so, what about the possibility of them using their employees as human shields?" As one might imagine, the replies to that were often vague and hostile. 

I tried to reconcile this violent streak in the dustiest corners of the leftist movement with the broad goals of electoral reform, voter enfranchisement, and the policy issues I've mentioned elsewhere. Granted, the system is in bad shape, but is the alternative violent insurrection? 

If yes, you might be a fascist

It was seeing a former leftist advocating for the Capitol Hill terrorists that made everything crystal clear. I'd run across the concept of "red fascism" previously. The fact that totalitarian governments calling themselves "communist" hunted for "fascists," with secret police when necessary, does not mean those regimes were not, in fact, still totalitarian or fascist. But it still shocked me to see an avowed anti-fascist referring to terrorists as family, and proclaiming that any actions to the contrary were "neo-liberal capitulation." 

The dramatic irony of defending the fascists they have professed to hate, simply because the FBI is more fascist, gave me a lot to laugh at. Thinking about it for a while wiped the smile right off my face. 

The big mistake

People - previously including myself - tend to think that the left and the right curve towards each other with these behaviours, but what it really represents is a sort of snapping-off point. The actual values espoused by leftism and liberalism broadly speaking - personal self-determination, protection of rights of others - experience some conflict with the values of capitalism and conservatism. These definitions of words shift, of course - many people talk about liberalism and neo-liberalism interchangeably, even though that's deeply confusing and inaccurate (please stop, Twitter). There was a time when conservative governments actually did things like conserve air, water, and national parks. 

But at the present moment, when leftists start having things in common with the alt-right, I would contend that they are no longer leftists. In attempting to weld the horseshoe's diverging branches together, one of them has snapped off and gotten stuck to the other. 

Violent insurrection and overthrow of a government is incompatible with advocating for a peaceful society. Yes, the system is messed up, but trying to accelerate change with a militaristic coup - if it works at all - will not produce the kind of world we want. 

This article is too long, but it could still be longer. Suffice to say, most of the "radical left" is not represented by qualms expressed in this article. But a very, very, very small number of people are unwilling to deal with anything less than instantaneous change - and those people may think they're holding leftist ideals, but they've lost the plot. 

At the end of the day, all we can do is call out these violent mutterings within our own ranks. Fascism is fascism, even if some of the people calling for it seem - at first - to be calling for the correct sorts of changes. There's a reason Hitler used the term "national socialist" for his party, and it's because smuggling right-wing ideas in with a left-wing package works pretty well. 

Unless, of course, as soon as you notice what they're up to, you kick the fascists out.

Have you run into these people? Do you have a counterargument you’d like to make? Hit me up in the comments below. 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and Max the cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

Horseshoe Theory is Not Enough

 I was crawling through my Discord and Facebook threads about politics and chatting with friends when a buddy shared a screenshot of a tweet that made my jaw drop. (Discord is a social chatting platform similar to old IRC chats, but with a nicer interface; if you don't know what Facebook and Twitter are, I would like to know the location of your rock, and exactly how many other blind salamanders live under it, because it should probably be protected by UNESCO.) 

Anyway, there's a content producer called Peter Coffin. They create video essays on Youtube, and since I tend to watch my fair share of "Leftube"/"Breadtube"/educational and witty videos about current events and philosophical topics, I've come across their work. They're very aggressively against "horseshoe theory," which is the idea that the extreme left and the extreme right bend around to being similar to each other. This makes it seem as though the center/centrism is the most rational perspective and belief - obviously, I personally disagree with that. 

(All screenshots were taken on January 15th, around 12 AM, by myself.)  

The tweets I've screenshotted here are, to put it colloquially, cursed as fuck. Proceed with caution (and some type of memory-scrubbing agent, especially for that Pence tweet).

However, the way this political theorist has spoken about Gamergate has been - to put it mildly - a warning sign. Gamergaters launched targeted harassment at game designers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, among others, citing their role in...somehow prejudicing the industry against white men? "It's about ethics in games journalism" became a rallying cry - but any amount of examination made that ostensible excuse fall apart like a dessicated wasp nest. 

To reiterate: they (Peter Coffin) are sympathizing with people who created an entire narrative structure to validate their anger at BIPoC, women (+), and LGBTQ people for both wanting to be represented in games and designing their own games and stories. 

If nothing else, more art makes art better. Straight people, white people, and especially men actually benefit from these stories existing, because it will lead to more nuances and better stories being told for them, too. 

Gamergate, QAnon, and MAGA

Unfortunately, when people equate a desire for representation with hate, and when they also ignore power structures, we get things like the violence against Black Lives Matter protestors. These movements share very similar ethics and values. In fact, the pickup artist community and the "manosphere," as well as the incel movements, have all been linked to the alt-right. These communities directly feed into each other and stoke violent hatred. 

And why wouldn't they? Defensive, angry people hearing that their way of life is Bad, Actually are going to group together. Unfortunately, arguing with these people online tends to push them further into their bubbles. Discussion etiquette is in a dire state, but some arguments are also too stupid to be countenanced. Instead, de-radicalization therapies and approaches are more effective. 

Trying to debate a cultist doesn't work. I've tried. Unfortunately, understanding how the violent kind of radicalization and cults work has given me insight into something unpleasant. The left doesn't become like the right - rather, the alt-right tends to use the trappings of the left, and sometimes, converts us. Two groups of people who distrust the government, albeit for drastically different reasons, can come together over that link. The same thing happens with flat Earthers - some believe in a dome, and some believe in a weird ice-wall thing, but they're basically just united by their opposition, rather than a core set of principles.  

And when people get so focused on one element of inequality that it blots out their understanding of all others - for instance, class reductionists like Coffin, who think that capitalism and clout culture are the only explanation for every problem - their logic tends to disintegrate.

]

But empathy? 

Here's the thing. Empathy with the people on the other side is actually important. I speak in harsh terms about white supremacists because we can't excuse their behaviour, but understanding their anger and fear is important. Hell, even understanding why rich, powerful people probably don't want to hand over their comforts and resources helps. 

But as much as the institutions punishing the protestors suck, and as much as they've been used against the oppressed, it doesn't mean that we should sympathize with people who believed the election was fraudulent because their candidate didn't win. My Canadian representatives and my preferred American candidates haven't won every single election, but the correct response to that state is to protest or strike and use democratic means when possible. Even setting aside the absolutely awful, stupid things Trump and his movement stand for, vicious and abusive tantrums are unacceptable. 

Sympathizing with people choosing to attempt the murder of others is bad, actually. Seeing this perspective voiced by someone who has been so adamant about the fact that horseshoe theory is fake is painfully ironic. 

What can we learn from Peter's screwups? 

There's plenty to laugh at and cringe at here. The most important thing to take away from all this is approaching all of our ideas with caution and awareness of our biases. Empathy and pragmatism have to go hand-in-hand. Finally, if we try to make everything fit a single pattern, all we'll do is draw a red-string conspiracy board, and strangle ourselves. 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their two cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

Just Desserts

 Oh, how the turn tables. 

With Trump impeached for the second time in one term - a historic first for the US - I wanted to take a moment to really just savour the backlash against him and the fascist movement threatening him. 

Despite what a small number of people on the left and liberals are saying - you know, that we ought to be kind to these discontented "patriots" trying to do their best, etcetera - the reprecussions have been severe. Delayed, granted - this should have happened years ago. Trump should never have been allowed to run. The deplatforming should have started with Alex Jones' denial of the Sandy Hook shooting, but it was allowed to go on. Still, I cannot help but celebrate. 

It was so overdue. 

Koch, Disney, and Hallmark  are a few of the names rescinding or "reconsidering" or pulling funding outright from either the Republican Congress and Senate members who encouraged the riot, or the entirety of the GOP. Dow Chemical - you know, from Dow Jones in the stock market? - announced a similar kneecapping. And this comes after Trump was banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Tiktok, even Pinterest. The app Parler, which was funded heavily by a GOP supporter,  has been scrubbed from the Apple and Google app stores. 

If you're wondering why I'm gleeful rather than concerned about this, I've written about the paradox of tolerance before. Suffice to say that saying something does not mean that anyone is obligated to listen to or support what is said. Furthermore, here in Canada, we distinguish between free speech and credible threats of violence. "I could strangle him, I'm so mad" may be incriminating, but is not a crime; "We should go strangle him right now, and I'll drive. Get the rope and a shovel" has a specificity that makes it dangerous. 

After years of the Black Lives Matter movement and of antifascist protestors and the black blocs being painted as terrorists, and years of LGBTQ+ and BIPoC being silenced and treated more harshly than others on these very platforms, the other side is getting a taste of it. It will never make up for the fact that people who simply didn't want to be murdered by institutional forces were fired, traumatized, threatened, and worse - but it's progress. 

Source. 

The catch 

Unfortunately, it's not over yet. The violence in DC may betoken a wave of terrorism on Inauguration Day. Journalist Sarah Kenzior and her colleague Andrea Chalupa, as well as reporters from Slate and Vox, expressed concerns that further conflict and sabotage will occur at various state capitols - as well as at the Inauguration itself. 

As much as I'm blowing the world's tiniest noisemaker over this victory, we can't be complacent. We have to be vigilant. White supremacy-based, Christian-rooted violence has been underestimated for decades, and now we're reaping the price. 

Listen. The FBI, RCMP, police, and other bodies of law enforcement are tools of colonialism and oppression. I wish it were otherwise, but police officers were present on both sides of the terrorist acts at the Hill. Both Canada and the USA are settler nations on stolen land, founded on oppression - but these messy democracies are the best we've got, and we can keep working from within them to vote, protest, and strike for change. Democracy has to be protected and defended, and we cannot assume that the fascists, conspiracy theorists, and cult followers in Trump's motley crew will rest. 

A brave and careful person going by the handle donk_enby scrubbed terabites of identifying information from Parler, helping the FBI locate these terrorists. This is not "thought-crime" or any of the buzzwords invoked by conservatives and centrists who skim-read a few paragraphs of 1984. These were actual criminal and morally reprehensible actions, the type of which all social species have to deal with and circumscribe for their own survival. 

Even if you dislike, loathe, or distrust these institutions, the fact that they're doing what they're designed for is a win. The system is bad, but we must try to bend it to our will, and take advantage of this moment of reprisal. 

Source. 

In the meantime, while we catch our breaths, we can spare a moment to smile. For once, something fair happened to people who wanted to hurt others. A bunch of Gen Z staffers who endured school shooting drills saved the lives of many elected representatives. 

Retaliatory murder does not bring justice - only pain and and more disorder. Instead, we need restorative justice - and the prosecution of the white wannabe secessionists is a little start in that direction. 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their two cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

Weird Sex Books Can be Art, Too

 I was listening to my Play Later queue on my favourite podcast app - like my Youtube Watch Later playlist, it's rather unwieldy and extensive - and as usual, I ended up adding a recent episode that caught my fancy. 

This one happened to be about what might be the most notorious Canlit book, or even the most notorious Canadian book, of all time - Bear. 

Yes, I'm talking about the book where a woman falls in love with and has sex with a bear. That book. 

Content warning for sexual subject matter and allusions follows - if you couldn't tell by the title. Read at your own risk. There will also be spoilers for this and a few other books. As an additional note, I refer to "men" and "women" in this post, but it does not encompass the issues faced by fellow members of the LGBTQ+ community - although those issues are most comparable to the ones faced by those society perceives as women.

In case you want to follow along, here's the podcast.

Source.

Wait, come back

First off, I'm not going into any of the really explicit details. Here's the thing about sex - although many people, particularly Americans, have been trained into puritanical instincts of shock and fear at the mere mention of it, it's part of life. And sex on the page and in media isn't just about the physical act. It can show you things about the characters' relationship to each other. Masturbation or fantasies, solitary sex acts, can be used to show a character's mental state, self-esteem, or even frame them in the societal perceptions of others. 

One thing that's interesting is that - the entire thing is consensual. Yeah, yeah, I know, bestiality - but there isn't a sexual assault or aggressive force. Modern Amazon erotica, fanfic, and Litererotica certainly include more forceful encounters, as well as accidental ones, but this particular book takes a rather gentle approach.

(I am not endorsing bestiality in real life; animals cannot adequately consent. But it's okay for books to do weird, transgressive things; the issue of consent in fantasy and fiction is a thorny one that I won't get into here because it's so lengthy. The too long, didn't read version is - it's fine, because it isn't real life.) 

That said, the leisurely pace and naturalistic descriptions, as well as the exact use of the bear's tongue that you're expecting, lend a focus to female pleasure. That's somehow still a taboo topic even in this post Fifty Shades of Grey world; the MPAA has different standards for female and male bodies - to say nothing of nonbinary and trans bodies. 

But the world of literature has always smuggled in strange, weird, kinky things in the name of art. That might partly be because of the titillating thrill, but these peculiar pecadilloes are usually meant to show something about the world and characters, as I said previously.

So what's the book really about? 

The issues of settlers versus the Indigenous people, accommodating nature, the constructed world versus the natural one; gender differences, fantasy, fairy tales (Indigenous versus Western) - there's so much in this book. 

It's not even the first time I've noticed weird sex things in a literary fiction work - or Canlit in general. Margaret Atwood's Lady Oracle had weird, kinky waltzing in an attic, with a taxidermist; Oryx and Crake and Year of the Flood include some creative descriptions of dancing sex workers dressed like bird and lizard girls, as well as more disturbing child-related content (which is, of course, never condoned). Michael Ondaatje's In the Skin of a Lion, from the English Patient series, includes a vivid description of snowballing. Leonard Cohen's Beautiful Losers includes both explicit and implied allusions to - well, the kind of sexual acts that one imagines when writing a novel during a summer of heat stroke. Anal sex, threesomes, forced masturbation - there's a lot. The poetry of Leonard Cohen and Shane Koyczan also spare few details. Timothy Findley's The Wars has a very, very specific description of gay pony play involving a scarf, as well as a sexual assault.

And that's just Canada. We're not even talking about Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath breastfeeding scene or the fact that Lawrence of Arabia (the first book, apart from Bear, that I haven't read) included lengthy descriptions of sexual assault that - allegedly - were the author's fantasy, and did not happen. But why are all of these books not considered smutty or derided as "trashy" romances? 

Not like other girls 

One thing about the interview, and about literary fiction in general, is that there is a sense of disdain directed at works intended to titillate women, or rather, political women (i.e. those who are perceived as women by society, whether or not they identify or are such). Somehow, it's fine to talk about sex as long as you don't get too turned on. In practice, of course, this means that men can write about pretty much whatever they want and still be considered Literary or Respectable. But if a woman(+) strikes a certain tone or is anything less than documentarian or even sneering in her interests - Lady Oracle's dismissive attitude towards romance comes to mind - then surely, it is but the frippery of feminine creatures. (More about this can be found in Dangerous Books for Girls, an excellent work.)

Despite critiquing the sexual prudence and hypocrisy of the Victorians, it would seem that Bear is not above the same snobbery. Victorians and their earlier counterparts panicked at the thought of women fantasizing, perhaps - gasp! - demanding more from their husbands, or worse, not marrying at all! Alexandre Dumas (pere) alluded to this in The Count of Monte Cristo, when Eugenie Danglars runs off with her lover, another woman, though he was fairly sympathetic to the character, who he described as "Sapphic." Victor Hugo even ridicules "The Thenardiess," Cosette's abusive mother, for "reading too many trashy novels" in Les Miserables, because her daughters get "ridiculous" names. 

Misogyny. It's just misogyny.

It's so tiresome. As I explained to my partner when sharing the podcasts, "when men write weird sex books, we accept them as transgressive legends; when women do it, we point and laugh." That's not to say we shouldn't accept and enjoy humour - Bear is intended to be humourous in tone at times, for example. But if we don't recognize the inherent absurdity of artistic situations, we can't fully appreciate their gravity. In folklore, "animal wives" and even "animal husbands" are a specific subcategory of the Arne-Thompson index.  Fantasy and science fiction offer the suspension of disbelief that allows authors to get away with sometimes terrible things - Piers Anthony's depictions of grown men having sex with youngish teenagers and his many, many sexual assault scenes come to mind. 

But what's perhaps worse is that concepts which would be labeled as romance if they were written by a woman completely fly under the radar when a male author is involved. Boy, are there a lot of litfic books about A Younger Attractive Woman (who is either Terrible or Perfect) who Revitalizes the Life of an Older Man. It's Manic Pixie Dream Girls all the way down. 

Is this an actual problem? 

Well - frankly, people can write whatever they want, and one can choose whether or not to read those books; that's not censorship, that's just personal choice. But I would encourage readers to try and think about how they talk and think about books, and try to take down the internal double standards we hold. This is a big problem for men - they can often recognize creepy behaviours from others, but not themselves, as a formerly male friend of mine verified. 

And of course, this lack of respect also affects women's literary careers. Men, and white people more broadly, not only get away with more, they get more money. And after a year of, to put it mildly, massive disruption in the publishing industry, we need to demand better for our PoC peers and ourselves going forward. 

And as another friend put it, "Explain why you dislike Twilight, and if the reasons are The Wrong Ones...Byeeeeeee." 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their two cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

Being Goth is Self-Care

 So, I've had a thing for distressed sweaters and knitwear since childhood - between The Matrix (1999) and my love of Dickens and his orphans, I've always had an appreciation and fascination for things falling apart. Growing up in an upper-middle-class household with parents from lower working-class backgrounds (a farming family and a military family respectively), having to really wear things out before I got a new one wasn't much of a problem. (Yes, I realise how frustratingly privileged that statement will sound, to many people. I know.) 

But I grew up with my fashion sense somewhat circumscribed. For one thing, being a fat child in the 90s and 2000s was not especially easy. That is putting it mildly; for a variety of reasons, it was hell, and has left me with lasting body image issues and struggles with disordered eating ever since. Add on a hormonal condition, PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) and you have a recipe for body dysmorphia that no physician will ever pick up, and self-loathing that's been hard to shake. 

Over the years, I've managed to chip away at it bit by bit. There are still body parts I hate, resent, and fear - but I don't always hate them all the time, and what's more, I actually like other parts of my body. Learning how to look all right while not smiling in photos has also been useful. I like taking pictures of the world around me, my friends, and myself to capture a mood, a moment, or a memory - and frankly, I don't like faking happiness or calm. I was rather good at it for a long time, but it certainly wasn't good for me. 

 

How do you solve a problem like self-loathing? 

Well, in my case, with fashion. I always designed and drew dresses in my childhood, and learning to knit and sew by hand, and later, re-learn to sew with a machine, has enabled me to alter my clothes so they either fit or are more comfortable. I'm not great at it all the time, but just doing it is very validating. 

It's rather embarrassing to be a woman in her thirties going through a goth phase; most of the time, it's relegated to the province of teens or young adults. But frankly, life does not end at age 30, as I am discovering, and neither does self-examination. Certainly, I hope it is less navel-gazing and circular than the decidedly shallow, valid stuff that fills many a "man pain" Literary novel - but the truth is that middle-aged people exist, and are not always complacent. 

As relationships mature and the haze of crisis dies down, it's not a bad idea to reevaluate things and consider what causes one pain and what brings relief and comfort - and to seek more of the latter, while resolving the former. But in the same vein, avoiding pain and wallowing in it are both traps. The only middle ground of peace is acceptance. And sometimes, being a little sad for a while feels nice. 

Where does the goth stuff come in to this? 

The thing about wearing clothing that is flamboyant and artistic and expressive is that in addition to pairing things that look nice together in a satisfying way, it also lets me communicate nonvisually. I've loved distressed sweaters for ages - but frankly, the last four years have been particularly distressing, and there's really something refreshing about feeling like shit because you look like shit, but make it fashion.

And sometimes, non-verbal, even non-spoken communication can be really powerful. With the toll 2020 has taken on me, being able to throw on a dark, gloomy sweater, and feeling its weight, being able to pet the soft knitted fabric and pluck the loose threads or smooth them back into shape, has been viscerally cathartic in a way. Sometimes, one has articulated all they can about one's feelings, but a mood still remains - and for that, wearing black or a big, glum, clouded-sky grey scarf can be awfully comforting. It's a way to signal one's mind state without having to say it out loud. 

And this is not to say that my depression has come back - oddly, I think my mental health is better this month than it's been in years. There are two very big problems I've been struggling with for more than a decade (which I'll talk about more later; they're difficult) - and I've finally cracked them. But of course, sometimes I'm still sad, especially as I work on things and grieve the loss of them.

frankly, the last four years have been particularly distressing, and there's really something refreshing about feeling like shit because you look like shit, but make it fashion.

Now, that's not to say that I'm always wearing black distressed sweaters, stockings or socks, and black shorts/distressed denim skirts every single day. In fact, it's been kind of a good motivation to wear more colourful clothes at other times. The difference between sadness and depression is, in a sense, consent. To be less glib, however, depression washes the colour out of everything; sadness has plenty of value. 

Clothes can be feelings

The thing about wearing dark clothing is that it's been allowing me to basically validate my own feelings and express them without having to, I don't know, walk around making declarative sentences at all times. I am not, after all, an NPC in a video game. 

But clothing can be used to express joy, or madness, or a desire for comfort as well. If there's one thing I've learned from this, it's that improbable things that feel inaccessible sometimes work better than we might expect. So, for my readers - maybe you're a mother in a van feeling overwhelmed. Sometimes this sort of thing takes hours, but it's not as though the only way to be goth or express another alternative fashion sense is to spend hours upon hours doing one's makeup. (That is also fine, of course, but not everyone has, wants, or needs to do that much makeup or preening.) Wearing all black and putting on some extra eyeliner might be enough for you - and it doesn't make you inferior. 

Alternatively, purple pants and an insane 80s sweater might evoke the hectic madness someone is feeling. Does something appear to clash? Well, try it anyway. People, myself included, often worry about "pulling off" an outfit, but the key to doing that isn't just confidence - it's comfort. If something is comfortable, or makes one's body feel good (say, a tight belt on a loose shirt dress, or a corset, or pants with just the right texture) then it's going to look so much better than that stiff, awful chiffon on that disappointingly cute cottagecore blouse. 

And finally: phases pass. Some of them become a normal part of one's life, losing their intensity; some just end unexpectedly one day. But giving oneself permission to just try something for a while is terribly important. And at the very least? It's going pretty well for me. 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their two cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi