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

Accidentally Progressive Misogynists

It's no secret that I'm a feminist, but I also grew up reading and adoring the words of Dead White Men, as they're often referred to now. Today, however, I want to focus my gaze on two peculiar bedfellows: Hemingway and H.P. Lovecraft.

When I first read Hemingway - for school, surprisingly enough; most other authors of "Great Literature," I sought out on my own - I was struck by the female protagonist's ferocious personality. In Matilda, Roald Dahl's main character comments to the kindly librarian that she "doesn't understand some of the things he says sometimes about men and women." That stuck with me, and when I got to Hemingway's books years later - For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun Also Rises, A Farewell to Arms - I definitely expected them to be, well, more offensive.

Hemingway's women are often scrappy, tough, and give as good as they get - and frankly, the men in his stories are often a pretty ragged, sorry, rather troubled lot. A femme fatale dame may be seen as death walking on a long set of legs, but the fact that she even poses a threat to Man and the Natural Order implies something very interesting about this so-called and imagined "rightness." But let's stick a pin in that discussion of "rightness" and quickly mention my other target: Lovecraft.

A Spooky, Lonely, Racist Old Man 

Now, it may surprise my gentle (or not particularly gentle) readers that I still have an abiding fondness for Lovecraft's work. The man himself was a lonely, sad fellow who had so many compulsions and fears that he barely functioned. His phobias - or at least, things he wrote about as being frightful - included dogs, cats, rats, cellars, cold rooms, the ocean, cephalopods, fungus, weird colours, Black people, Native Americans, other Brown people, Jewish people, Mixed people, non-Christian religions, women, mixed neighbourhoods, the dark, mirrors, and of course, madness, ruin, and mutation.

When talking about Lovecraft, some people (like his esteemed but regressive and unmannerly biographer Joshi) try to skirt around the ugly stuff, or downplay it - as in a rather awkward conversation I once had with a publisher in a significant Lovecraftian fiction house that shall remain unnamed. The woman insisted that Lovecraft had married a Jewish woman and therefore could not hate the Jews, and that for the time period, he wasn't that racist...

The counterpoints to this are painfully easy to make, but suffice to say that readers who are not convinced that Lovecraft and Hemingway are assuaging their own fears of other's perceptions and hiding from rather easily-proven points. Both are racist and somewhat misogynistic; both were also rather good writers. We must accept both premises rather than trying to justify or negate one or the other. The world does not always accept easy and comfortable categorization into "good" and "evil" or "bad."

Now, of course, as a white woman, I have a certain amount of societal cushioning that just makes it easier to endure and set aside certain things. And yet, there is a core to these two authors' works that calls me back, even when they surround or allude to rather detestable ideas.

In addition to a sort of mystique and fear around "The Other," whether speaking of women, non-white people, or combinations thereof, there is also a peculiar and almost beautiful longing.

There is something ineluctable about both Lovecraft and Hemingway that compels me deeply. It's the same tendency one can find in, surprisingly enough, such hated halls as the Incel (involuntarily celibate) forums of the latter day. They feel absolutely helpless before what they believe to be the absolutely monumental power of The Feminine, or The Threat of Non-Whiteness, or Pagan Decadence, or Homosexual Weakness. They constantly hint at or state outright that they are fighting these "fallen" influences - as though that's a fight they're constantly losing internally. One is reminded of the erotic angel-wrestling scenes alluded to in Angels of America, when Joe, the Mormon man with a bad case of sexual repression, discusses his gay longings.

The failure fetish

The thing with Hemingway, and often with Lovecraft, is that their stories are often about white men failing. Sometimes their characters die in moral triumph, but they die nonetheless. It's as though they want to fail, or as though the only way to escape the moral question altogether is with death. The striving and inevitable failure is almost compulsive, a kind of "l'apell du vide" (call of the void) where they have an ineluctable longing and tendency towards that which they claim to abhor.

Both men are fascinated with "the Other" even as much as they often abhor The Other's differences. Whether it's femininity, breaking the binary, or things "too horrid to name" (presumably gay stuff and BDSM, one supposes), Lovecraft kept coming back to the strangeness, especially genderless beings. The essential normalization of white, cisgender male masculinity - a completely artificial depiction of it, one might add, which is ahistorical and entirely synthetic, despite the way modern-day "Red pill" types and Republicans fetishize it - is rampant. And yet it is also tremendously fragile, in a way that echoes Christian morality. Even the slightest pleasure is a window through which evil can peer, or whisper, or tempt one from righteousness. And yet, are these evils not rather banal? If one's life and moral uprightness can be destroyed by an incautious application of glitter, is it not a rather sad, hollow life?

Extremely mediocre art by Michelle Browne.

The hidden longing

There is something incredibly empathetic hidden at the core of these works. The "terrible, unknowable" urge compels them to investigate the forbidden - and to understand things beyond their own world of experience. Similarly, in the Warhammer 40K novels and setting books, trying to understand the Chaos Gods or Xeno forces such as the Tau or Eldar can result in being "tainted" - in effect, empathy is both one of the Empire of Man's greatest weapons and greatest weaknesses.

But this longing is always the undoing of characters - when they dare come too close to the things that tempt them, whether those be horrifying powers, immigrant women whose children are going missing, or gods who walk as Black Men (as in Dreams in the Witch-House), all that is "good" and "noble" in these men is destroyed.

It's always because of family influences or heritage or interests, or then their experiences, but even unwillingly, the characters develop empathy and get closer to the cosmic horrors. The guy was racist, but part of him knew, I think, just how wrong he was. Not something he could face down.

In the later years of his life, Lovecraft started to write with more empathy and kindness about the otherworldly cosmic forces and aliens his characters ran into. Ernest Hemingway, who died of depression, met a fate that thousands of men fall prey to each year. One man died of poverty and isolation; the other, of unresolved mental health issues.

That unwilling empathy in these lauded dead white males is often lurking there, and it's so sad that they and other racists effectively cut themselves off from others' human experiences.

And perhaps, that's the greatest lesson - to conform to these artificial standards of masculinity is the real doom. Where a world of wonder and discovery awaits, the real horror comes from living within a prison - and thinking it's the only way and most correct way to live. And that ironic fate is not one I'd wish on anybody, especially now that people have a chance at living differently.

***

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

The World Belongs to You: On the Sunset of White Supremacy

Hello hello!

On a whim, I found myself working on a short story today. There was a contest for a podcast I love, I Don't Even Own a Television, and I decided to actually take a shot at it.

(On a related note, I know that for those of us on slender budgets, rationing out meds is sometimes required - but take your meds, everyone. It's good for you, and good for your creativity.)

For the story, I found myself thinking about a positive comment or two one of the hosts made about Sun-Ra. As a different friend of mine has been inspired by the seminal poet and musician's work for some time, and has been tracing his effects on Afrofuturist literature, Sun-Ra's been on my mind. That and the ridiculous prompt soon blossomed into a tongue-in-cheek skewering of nostalgia-bait. The story itself featured three Black characters trying to run maintenance checks on habitat craft while asteroid-mining on the belts around Saturn, and ended with Tasia, the main character, happily considering her future in the infinite space around her. 

While penning the vignette, I got to thinking about an awkward topic I've been wanting to blog about for a while. As a white person - never a good way to start a sentence, but bear with me - I think about white supremacy and injustice issues a lot. Accepting my place in that system and the place of people who look like me can be thorny. 

So - how do those of us who are white emotionally cope with the historical and present burden of accepting that our ancestors and relatives were and still do wreak havoc and enact violence on so many others?

The Evil Empire 

Maybe it's a little silly, but one of the ways I have reconciled with this is by thinking of it in Star Wars terms. Obviously, this fandom is full of toxicity, and it's pretty illustrative in this instance. 

Being white, particularly in the post-European cultural mishmash of North America, means being the inheritors of the benefits of colonialism. That stolen land and wealth was given to us. And sure, our lives can be hard in different ways - but in others, in fundamental ways, we have been cushioned. 

More so, culturally speaking, white people still dominate in both American and Canadian culture, and in terms of representation. Sure, we're nominally a majority, but if you're reading my blog, you are probably also aware of how disproportionate that representation has favoured us, or at least, people like me (since you, dear reader, may not be white).

But in order to deconstruct that hegemony, those of us who are white have to let go of that heritage. 

Imagine, if you will, being born into the Empire in Star Wars and developing Rebel sympathies. Admitting that everything around you is basically wrong can leave one with a heavy heart, but the only way to fix the world and culture is to face and internalize this fact.

The Sunset of the Elves 

Here's the thing - it's okay to have mixed feelings about that, and to be like, "wait a minute, is this evil? Has my culture, my country, have my ancestors perpetrated and enabled evil?" 

Seeing evil as a verb rather than a state of being, the short answer to that question is "probably, yes." 

While that's rough thing to accept and process - nobody wants, truly, to think of themselves as bad - it also means that we have a chance to gracefully fade. I'm editing a project that deals with white supremacists and racists right now, and seeing things from inside that has given me a surprising empathy for them. However, as both the author and myself agree, violence and fear are not the way to protect that legacy. 

For one thing, Black people and other people of colour aren't particularly out to destroy all remnants of European cultural heritage, and more specifically, of whiteness. But - those of us born white should do that for them. 

It's not that I'm saying we ought to destroy every celebration, or that things like pagan traditions should be forgotten, but we absolutely have to let them become less prominent and make room in culture for the expressions of others. And maybe there's a tiny bit of romance to playing our part in letting the sun go down on evil, and watching others flourish. While the elves are not conventionally evil in Tolkein's Lord of the Rings, the metaphor of transition still works decently, at least for my mindset.

And maybe it's okay for the empire, and us, its children, to recede and fade a little. We've dominated so much for so long - to the detriment of our own compassion and humanity, because that dominance came about through no natural means; only violence and control. (And I reject the proposition that violence and control are a "natural" way to live or some mark of triumph among a species that is, by evolution and fate, as pro-social and inclined to altruism as humans are.)

Shown: just one of the cultural groups I didn't even know about until a couple weeks ago.

But what do we get in exchange? 

Selfishly speaking - as most of this post is - it can be hard to let go of power. But we are still allowed to witness and, when invited, participate in the joy of others. 

The problem with whiteness - not merely European-ness, but whiteness, the construct - is that it is inherently restrictive. For those unfamiliar with its precedent, whiteness is an artificial invention devised by slavers to distinguish themselves from enslaved people. Specifically:

"The Virginians legislated a new class of people into existence: the whites. They gave the whites certain rights, and took other rights from blacks. White, as a language of race, appears in Virginia around the 1680s, and seems to first appear in Virginia law in 1691. And thus whiteness, and to a degree as well blackness, was born in the mind of America."

Let that sink in for a moment. Whiteness has erased European cultural heritages, flattened out shared heritage - for after all, if one is to benefit from whiteness, one must supuress and avoid any sharing or serious investment in other cultures, be they Indigenous, Asian, Black, or anything else - and only dabble with them, not engage.

The fight for equality

Even more perniciously, letting ourselves fear the safety and sanctity of whiteness - an artificial construct, as with racism in general - keeps us divided from other oppressed people and even just our neighbours. If we fear, hate, or deride others, why would we invite them to our table, or show compassion for them, or help them out?

We are stronger together. The world we live in, and the world of the future, will continue to be beautiful and diverse and amazing. And within that word, "diversity", there are more colours and shades and cracks and crevices than we can even understand. Multiculturalism doesn't mean a weird, indistinct melting pot - it means that people with thousands of years of history in their own rights can come together, share, discuss, and create new things. It means that people can live in different places, and come up with new foods, and that nobody ever has to be bored again. 

I'm not sure how to express just how beautiful humanity is, or how many different ideas and histories and experiences there are in the world.

It's truly a matter of going from a monochromatic view of the world to full-colour. It's dizzying, and wonderful, and sometimes even painful - but there's so much to share and enjoy. And yes, there are still points of friction, because rejoicing in our shared humanity and differences doesn't mean we can forget the legacy of all this pain and violence - but the future is, and can be, so bright.

As I said to one of my friends this afternoon, "the future belongs to you."

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and nightmares, as well as social justice issues. She is currently working on the next books in her series, other people's manuscripts, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Catch up with Michelle's news on the mailing list. Her books are available on Amazon, and she is also active on Medium, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. 

Political Correctness Is Not Your Friend

Hello hello!

Content warning: I use some pretty harsh language in this one, so if racism is triggering for you, be prepared or maybe skip this one for the sake of your mental health.

So, for a very long time, something has been sitting awry with me. People on my side of the political and rights spectrum--those who accept the reality of and want to fight social, racially based, gender-based, and ability-based inequality--keep using this phrase, "politically correct", as though it's a good thing.

Source. Where would a discussion on language be without this meme?

Why is this happening? 

Well, it started because a bunch of idiot white male comedians (that doesn't have to be a redundancy) started using the idea of being "politically incorrect" as an excuse to be sexist, racist, homophobic, and say whatever else was on their mind. This started happening because they were quoting George Carlin--a guy who fought hard against network censors.

Those of us who remember the 90s remember what political correctness meant--not just the positive benefits of avoiding racial and gendered slurs, but also the far less positive effect of not talking about controversial things. Political correctness does not mean uplifting people, it means avoiding controversy and offending people. It means painting over historically inaccurate racism--like say, the portrayal of Egyptians as white people--by casting lots of white people, so you won't "offend" anyone whose idea of Egyptian gods involves white skin. 

Not sure that's the case? Ask Google. 

po·lit·i·cal·ly cor·rect

pəˌlidək(ə)lē kəˈrekt/

adjective

adjective: politically correct; adjective: politically incorrect; adjective: incorrect

1. exhibiting (or failing to exhibit) political correctness.

   "it is not politically correct to laugh at speech impediments"

   synonyms:

   unoffensive, nondiscriminatory, unbiased, neutral, appropriate,nonpartisan; informalPC "the true meaning may be clouded by his politically correct language"

   antonyms:

   offensive

Wait, what? 

Political correctness means including black characters but never talking about racism, and having female scientists without touching on sexism. It means painting the world in an even, flat beige--not offending people, but also avoiding the rough edges of stories.

Political correctness is not about fighting discrimination, it's about avoiding offense in a way that does not fight or counteract the ruling power structures. It does not mean that being carelessly offensive, and a sloppy drunk on the stage, makes you some sort of warrior defending free speech--no matter what certain comedians and GamerGate subscribers would have one believe. Shouting slurs for the sake of shock and awe is basically the adult version of a toddler repeating swear words to get a rise out of her mother. It startles grandparents and embarrasses her mother--but is far from an actual conversation about, say, the history of farting in art, which is a valid and interesting topic.

Source. I wasn't just talking out of my ass. 

What does that mean for movies, TV, and books? 

I was talking with a friend on Facebook about old Western movies, and he shared some very interesting observations.

"Honestly there are some rather obvious divides with portrayals of the tribes, even going back to the old Westerns.

Because there's a lot of "ugh kill the white man" but there's also a fair amount of "uh, we screwed them y'know? If I were them I'd be angry too."

There were even a few films that had Native American heroes fighting white guys trying to screw them more. These were, of course, really rare. But weirdly one of the more notable ones starred Robert Taylor, who was pretty conservative."

[...]

"...But it says something that to get positive portrayals of native americans you often do need to check out (some, not all) of the Westerns around. Some of them had problems and were tone deaf in some ways, but they were also often very honest about the validity of the anger of the Native American at their treatment. It's hard to even get an angry Lou Diamond Phillips in Young Guns screaming about his family's murder these days in most of Hollywood. Which tends to be very positive but also very "uh no, let's not talk about this" about such issues."

This really struck a chord with me, and I remembered what it was about "political correctness" that had always bothered me. On one hand, we should not be throwing around slurs and insults in some ham-fisted and thin ploy to "reclaim" them, but on the other hand, we shouldn't force non-white, non-male, non-able characters to be model minorities. First Nations people have a right to be angry, and for us to acknowledge that anger.

That doesn't mean all First Nations people should be angry drunks or 'savage warriors', or that black characters should be former thieves or gangsters. It means that characters should talk about differing experiences, such as being pulled over for speeding while they were driving at the limit, and having the sherriff size them up, worrying that he was going to raid their car, while the dude just gloried in his power over the driver's helplessness.

That also means that the burden is on those of us who create stories, especially writers, to do our research and make an effort to talk about racism honestly. Not just "as white ambassadors", as is so often the case, but as allies and advocates. Perhaps more importantly, it means supporting non-white content creators, and learning when to listen rather than lead.

So what can we do? 

Well, instead of rallying around political correctness, call our enemies by their names: racism, sexism, homophobia, cissexism, and ableism--among other things. We can fight discrimination and racism without forcing people to be comfortable, but also without throwing survivors and vulnerable people under the bus. That's why content warnings are fine. Let people know that Deadpool's movie includes sex and violence, and make it rated R--don't make a watered down, PG-13 version so that 'everyone will be happy'. Let Harley Quinn fall for the Joker and leave him for a healthier relationship, rather than just "almost kissing him" like Anna with Hans in Frozen. 

Political correctness is about comfort, but there's no reason not to have it both ways. Embrace the ugliness of a real discussion about racialized violence or disadvantages felt by First Nations people, but don't refer to the same people as--just typing this makes me cringe in disgust--"drunk Injuns". We can stop permitting people's use of slurs while still demanding complex, nuanced, authentic stories.

Seek out stories by First Nations, Latino/a/x, Desi, black, and Asian writers. When you want to relax, reach for more than another Star Wars movie--throw on that random Korean drama you'd been planning to watch. Read blog posts by writers of colour, and see if the people on a list of creative work catch your eye. Throw money at Kickstarters and IndieGoGo and Patreon projects like this one. Paranormal queer romance? Uh, yeah! Or what about this one? 

Fixing the system isn't quite as hard as we've led ourselves to believe. Be respectful and prepare to be uncomfortable. That's all it's going to take.

***

Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Hunie Pop: Or, Evil Feminist Examination of a Dating Game

Hello hello!

So, another gaming post at long last--I'll be writing about Witcher 3 when my partner finally finishes it, but lately, we've been playing a match-3 dating game--Hunie Pop. So, full disclosure--this is the first time I have ever played a dating game.

Now, if the concept of a serious (ish) analysis of a dating game makes you shout, "IT'S ONLY A GAME, CALM YOUR TITS, LADY", the door is over there. Yes, it's 'just a game', but the things that someone says when they're being serious, compared to the things they laugh at when they're off guard, will both tell you a lot about that person.

So, without further ado--the game. Naturally, there will be

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

...beyond this point, so if that really bothers you, maybe buy and play the game first, then read this.

Wait, what the hell is 'Hunie Pop'?

Honestly? It's Bejeweled with tits, or Candy Crush but with actual girls to crush on. A fairy, Kyu Sugarplum, guides you through the game. There are about twelve girls, including unlocks, that you can have sex with, and players can be male or female--we're going to take a shot at the female version of the game and see how that changes dialogue, if at all, but we (my partner in crime, Disarcade, and myself switched up to play it) went with the male option. Basically, you're a hopeless virgin otaku who masturbates all day and is lonely, and this love fairy wants to teach you how to get some and make lady friends. 

So, you can probably see how this is problematic right away, but stick around--there's layers to it. 

From Kickstarter. It's like Pokemon--for your dick (or pussy).

Pros

The game is honestly a lot of damn fun. Its interface is nice, and there's some diversity with the girls--even the ones I didn't like had actual personalities. They felt like real enough people. The pinups and sexy art were fun to look at, especially for the uncensored version. The game itself is fun--I mean, come on, it's a Match 3 game!--and the mechanics were cool. There was a bit of diversity with the characters, in that Japanese, Latina, African-American, and Indian women were all included, but the other characters were white; of course, there was also a fairy, a goddess, an alien, and a cat girl. So, you know, it wasn't too bad as these things go. 

The other thing that I noticed was just how much personality the girls had. Each girl had a 'unique' interest and several 'common' interests, which could overlap with the interests of other girls. A couple of the girls were unabashedly dominant, and even bitchy or awkward--but realistically so. I have known smart, driven women who love self-help; awkward gamer girls who suck at conversation and communicating with humans; and then, too, I have known more than a few bratty princesses. There's a sweet-natured cheerleader and a bitchy Avril Lavigne type, and all of them are allowed to be themselves. They don't change for you, the stud trying to seduce them--you have to accommodate them. 

Cons

There were a couple fairly racist lines--where Kyu the fairy refers to the black character and says, "I love me some chocolate!" and talks about "yellow fever" when introducing the Japanese physics professor. I cringe just rewriting them, and we both winced when the dialogues played out. Having the Indian character love meditation and yoga, the black character be driven and strong-willed, but ladylike, and the cheerleader be as sweet and vanilla as possible also suggested stereotyping--I don't know how to feel about it, because the characters were handled pretty well, but still, conformity is conformity, and the game definitely made use of cultural tropes. Both of us winced when the Latina character gushed over the (sigh) sombrero and other Mexican kitsch objects that were her Unique gifts. The cultural portrayals do feel more than a bit fetishized, but they're decent for their limitations. 

Another thing is that while the girls did have a good range of heights, their weights and BMIs were fairly uniform--all were between 100 and 135 lbs, even though their heights ranged from 5'0 to 5'11. Their BMIs were around 19-23, with most falling at 19.5 or so. For those not familiar with the Body Mass Index, it's a very rough tool, but it gives you an approximate idea of the relative healthiness of your weight, compared to your height. 18-24 is considered healthy, and below 18 is considered medically underweight. So, they were all (literally) healthy, but it would have been nice to see some curvy, thick girls in the mix, too. Of course, they were all doe-eyed and pretty, and most of them were extremely femme in their presentation--not a butch to be seen, really. I understand that dating games *are* about the fantasy, but the presentations are definitely skewed towards traditional masculine ideas of attractiveness. 

Also, Kyu swears a lot, which is fantastic.

What does the game say about dating? 

It didn't escape my notice that the game literally uses affection tokens to get sex from women. It's very much a 'phuque and chuck' kind of game, in that after the first time you have sex with a character, there's not much point in continuing to talk to them or have sex again, apart from the grinding. And again, all the interests of the girls were pretty femme--a few of the girls liked hiking or sports, or working out, but there were no wilderness survival or gun and archery enthusiasts. The only real 'nerd' was a depressed, insecure, annoying girl with fairly androgynous tendencies--which, as anyone who knows more than one nerd girl can assert, is not representative of nerdgirldom. 

However, the fact that some characters were from more distant families and some were from closer families, and that an adult actress and sex trade worker was included in the cast was actually nice. The girls weren't perfect, just human. The game also ran on a metric of four different types of attraction--Sexual, Romantic, Flirty, and Talent--and used Passion, Sentiment, and Joy to affect these four areas. There were also heartbreak tokens. Honestly, I liked this mechanic, because each girl had a most preferred and least preferred token type of the four. That's pretty representative, because different people have different approaches and preferences for expressing their attraction. I also liked that the girls had overlapping as well as personal interests--that's realistic enough. 

The use of small gifts to keep a girl interested and the way some of the girls would comment on the payment structure was very interesting. Some of the characters expressed regret or embarassment about not having gifts or taking the protagonist out, and some demanded more resources without end. The idea of dating as a one-way pay structure really isn't great, even though it works for the game mechanics; especially since sex is the end goal, and the only end goal. Women are not slot machines (slut machines?) into which attention and resources can be inserted in exchange for sexual favours. It IS nice that every single case of the sex relied on initiation by the girls, and that inebriating them made them more generous, but did *not* automatically guarantee sex.  They also have sexual desires, to varying degrees--and it was nice to see a game acknowledge that ladies like to phuque too.

I think the most troubling thing for us was that the protagonist's lines often offer variations of the same answer, and that the game was very much about making sure women were told what they wanted to hear. There was no way to roleplay consistent answers or a personality--just to optimize answers for each woman.

I caught myself feeling jaded a few times. The formulaic way that one was supposed to respond was very much in line with elements of the PUA (pickup artist) systems, and it made it harder to feel like the characters we were sexing up were actually people.

Yes, it's only a game, but dating games are an emotional substitute or training wheels for more than a few people. If we're going to have a moral panic (tm) over the messages of romance novels for women--why aren't we throwing a moral panic over the messages these dating games send to young men? Sure, it's just fun, but no story passes through us without leaving a scintilla of an impression. 

So, is it good? 

It's fun. Is it sending a Good Message? Eh, yes and no. But if you want the experience of trying to date someone, with proper nuances and characterization, just pick up one of the Dragon Age games, Mass Effect, or better yet, something from the Witcher series, especially Witcher 3. 

Also? TRISS AND GERALT 4EVA. Not sorry. 

***

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Leave your comments, rebuttals, and vehement agreements below. Don't miss any of the phuquerie--get on the mailing list. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Human Centipede Syndrome: A Meditation on Internet Activism

Hello hello!

So, those of you who follow me on various streams--Tumblr, Twitter, etcetera--will probably notice a bit of a change in the coming months. I'm giving up on formally trying to pursue activism. I'm currently taking a week of (mostly) blacking out social media, and it's really helped me articulate a few things.

I'm twenty four, and I'm tired. I should not be this tired and exhausted at the thought of interacting with people I like, on platforms I like, about topics I like. I still care about diversity and signal-boosting alternative authors. I still plan to write about queer people and people of colour and the disabled. I still care about environmentally sustainable lifestyles and humane, fair treatment of animals (tasty ones included). I am still going to write about women doing things that they aren't supposed to or 'allowed' to do. This stuff does matter.

But I had to ask myself, as I stared at my Tumblr feed full of people arguing that Joan of Arc might have been bigendered, people tossing around the word 'patriarchy' as an insult, and the endless links on Reddt featuring people complaining about Muslims and women and basically anyone other than themselves--is all this negativity doing anything? Is screaming at people really going to get us anywhere?

Source. I love you guys too much to put actual screenshots from The Human Centipede up.

Who gets to speak?

There is a time to scream and there is a time to pick up your sign, write some letters, and take a stand. Screaming can be good. It's important and necessary. But there's too much of it going on. Add to the fact that a lot of the people doing the screaming are--like me--privileged, white North Americans. That also got me thinking--do I know enough to adequately represent the stuff I care about in public forums?

The answer was, frankly, no. I don't want to misrepresent people from other cultures, the trans* community, or anything else when it comes to issues that revolve around them. I can lend my support, but I can't speak for someone else.

The problem is that people (like me, admittedly) pick up a cause or choose to slam a celebrity for making a misstep without realising the importance of their actions. And then others fight against them, often saying pretty horrible things (the subReddit "Tumblr in Action" is a pretty fine example of social commentary gone awry, and let's not talk about "TalesofPrivilege", which is irritating and misogynistic enough that I don't want to link to it.) Is arguing with a bunch of neckbeards on The Escapist forum going to actually get more diversity into mediaeval settings? And furthermore, do I know enough to really talk about these subjects the way I'd like to?

Source. Opinions, on the internet.

What's the point?

Sure, on issues of mental health or sexual preference, I can speak, but I have professional experience on the first one and personal experience with both. And it's not a matter of being 'not strong enough' to take the endless feces-flinging from both the privileged masses and the hyperaggressive activists. It's about how I want to spend my time.

I am a writer. That means I need to write. I'm also an editor, which means I need to help make other writers' books better. Will an essay on pop culture, the internet, the teeth of Neanderthals, or sci fi help me develop the skills for making good art? In short, yes. Yes it will. Will screaming at people en masse or clicking reblog on a hundred posts or wandering through the endless crap swamp that is Jezebel help me make good art? Nope.

So, what's going to change? There's going to be more phuquerie. I'd rather laugh than scream, and I'd rather comfort than kill. When something matters, I'll still be there with sword drawn and banner flying, but I'm going to save that for the occasions where it's really merited. I'll reach out to people, not just shout into a void.

Here's the raw version of what I was feeling, before I could articulate it more clearly, previously published elsewhere.

"Stop.

Stop telling me to wear makeup. Stop telling me to cut my hair. Stop telling me to watch my mouth when I really am being insulting. Stop telling me to not talk about my genitals. Stop telling me to talk about my genitals. Stop telling me to tag things that passingly mention hard topics. Stop telling me to ‘check my privilege’ as though spewing a magic phrase at me will make me a better and more conscious human being. Stop telling me to not be a feminist. Stop telling me to be a feminist. Stop telling me my activism is annoying. Stop telling me my activism is boring. Stop telling me not to wear dresses. Stop telling me to wear dresses. Stop telling me to cover up. Stop telling me I need Jesus. Stop telling me not to swear. Stop telling me you think I’m too PC or that I’m being diverse for brownie points. Stop telling me something is ‘too diverse’. Stop telling me to campaign 24/7. Stop telling me it doesn’t matter. Stop telling me I should feel awful for liking something. Stop telling me it’s stupid to criticize pop culture. Stop telling me I’m a bad atheist. Stop telling me magic isn’t real. Stop telling me creationism is legit and should be taught in science classes. Stop telling me I am irredeemable. Stop telling me I am lost. Stop telling me there is something wrong with me. Stop telling me I don’t know what it’s like. Stop telling me to be polite before I have opened my mouth. Stop telling me I’m normal. Stop telling me I’m a freak. Stop telling me I’m crazy. Stop telling me my sexual orientation is imaginary. Stop telling me I’m deviant. Stop telling me I’m not deviant enough. Stop telling me I’m obese when I just want to listen to music on Youtube. Stop telling me how to lose fifty pounds with this one weird old tip. Stop telling me my personality is more beautiful than my body. Stop telling me how to have sex. Stop telling me being an introvert makes you special. Stop telling me extroverts are king. Stop telling me you think queers are less than human. Stop telling me you think cis people are less than human. Stop telling me to tag things. Stop telling me it will be fine. Stop telling me it’s my fault. Stop telling me that rape is deserved. Stop telling me pregnancy is deserved. Stop telling me you miss the days when racism was the norm. Stop telling me to smoke weed. Stop telling me not to smoke weed. Stop telling me sex workers are just nasty lazy hoes. Stop telling me that you know better because you are white and male. Stop telling me I am too sensitive. Stop telling me my junk is a political statement. Stop telling me to calm down. Stop telling me to get angry. Stop telling me to just be happy.

Stop. Telling. Me. What. To. Do."

*****

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

An Unexpected Bounty: C. J. Marco's Counterargument!

Hello hello!


Today I have a bit of a treat. This is a repost from my friend Colin's blog. I challenged him to write a counterargument to my fantasy post on Tolkein. Do you agree? Or do you guys think I was right--that classic mediaeval European fantasy needs to be adapted to maintain its relevance?

*****

All right, I'll admit it: I did not really care all that much for the prose in Lord of the Rings. I preferred The Hobbit, to be perfectly honest. The Hobbit recently hit theaters and is being released for home viewing today, actually. My aim here is to talk a little bit about Tolkien's works, a little about the film adaptation, and a lot about what Tolkien's massive body of work means for those who both write and read fantasy fiction.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (along with a dearth of other, less-known-to-those-who-are-not-hardcore-fantasy-fans works like The Silmarillion) are all set in the pseudo-medieval world of Middle-Earth, a place populated by mysterious, magical, wise, haughty elves, mine-dwelling, gold-greedy, proud dwarves, peace-loving, restive, often-hungry-yet-overlooked hobbits, and the race of Men, the wildcard race. Sound familiar? Probably. These are the most commonly-touched on tropes of the fantasy race mix. Magical objects and swords and runes? Check. Epic struggle between the forces of light and darkness? Oh yeah.  Why does it all seem familiar now? Because Tolkien took off the blinders and showed us how it was done.

Prior to the saga of Middle-Earth, such stories were the province of T.H. White and Le Morte d'Arthur as well as myths, legends, and a few sword and sorcery novels. The Hobbit primed the audience for the saga of the Rings trilogy.

Many people have said that the Lord of the Rings movies were better than The Hobbit, and any time that a fantasy epic comes out in theaters, it is always inevitably compared to LotR, though the reviews generally refer to Rings as being the superior in the mix. Why? Because it is just that damn good. The Lord of the Rings is one of the primary building blocks for fantasy literature, and it also shows on the silver screen. 

But, the well's run dry! Everything's the same as Lord of the Rings! Where do we go from here?

A wizard is never boring. Nor is he cliche. He entertains precisely when he means to. Source.

NO. High fantasy is thriving. It's bigger than ever right now. The Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, Diablo, Warhammer, World of Warcraft, and my personal favorite, D&D/Pathfinder, are all influenced to a certain degree by their mighty predecessor, but they are extremely varied and have potential to be even more so. Great stories will always be great stories, regardless of some possible similarities. The sheer number of fantasy products out there are naturally going to incur some overlap. Many of the product lines I mentioned earlier are also equally influenced by Moorcock's tales of the albino Elric, Howard's Conan the Barbarian, H.P. Lovecraft, Ursula Le Guin, Lewis' Narnia, and any number of other sources. In fact, Michael Moorcock has gone on record saying that "one thing I'm pretty sure of, I was not in any way directly influenced by Prof. Tolkien". (Source)

This would have happened even without Tolkien. Source.

Fantasy is still largely populated by pseudo-European characters and isn't LGBTQ friendly! Is there any hope?

Fantasy is taking great strides to get some variation in it, particularly in the fields of fantasy roleplaying games. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Pathfinder roleplaying game. According to company reps, all of the iconic characters (characters which personify the features of the classes they represent) are ostensibly bisexual, and include a black female paladin, an albino half-elf magus, a monk who appears to be from the Indian subcontinent, an Asian ninja, a middle-eastern oracle... the list goes on. There's only a handful of identifiably "European-looking" characters in the mix, and even then, they are not the majority, given that many other classes are either demihuman or near-monstrous races, such as orcs. The Paizo staff have actually said that they wanted to move away from the image of the "sword-wielding white guy"

The object of much scorn, Regdar was shoe-horned into D&D against the will of the design team. Sigh. Source.

Most of the Pathfinder design team worked for WotC back in the days of 3.Xe D&D. Regdar, the white-guy-with-a-sword of D&D, was almost universally hated by the design team, and so generally Regdar was typically the first to die in any artistic representation. This even carried over into 4e, where Regdar is both dead on the chapter intro for Rituals, and again in the Monster Manual in the medusa artwork. The team wanted a more diverse team of iconic characters, and instead, the corporate bigwigs forced Regdar upon them. 


For a little variation, culturally speaking, check out Legend of the Five Rings, which is set in a swords-and-sorcerers version of feudal Japan called Rokugan. It's a setting of pure epic fantasy, but it is mostly about warring clans of human samurai and the evil demonic overlord Fu Leng's treachery. 

Come to Rokugan for a break from your knights and wizards. Samurai and Shugenjas will fill the gap. Source.

Fantasy has also been moving away from simple tales of a male youth who grows from being a lowly pigherd into the Chosen One who saves the world from a stereotypical "Dark Lord", as Frodo was, but those archetypes and tropes will ALWAYS persist in fantasy literature. Ari Marmell is an established writer who consistently breaks the mold when it comes to his fantasy literature. His novel The Conqueror's Shadow is an inversion, where the archetypal Dark Lord (spiky, skull-helmed armor and all) becomes the hero by taking on someone worse than himself. His companions are an ogre farmer, a witch who eats people, and a grumpy bound demon. And they're the good guys.

Corvis Rebaine, the Dark Lord who nearly crushed the world beneath his iron heel, and reluctant hero. Source.

Now, I'll geek out a bit more here and I'll say that Marmell's work is EXTREMELY well-written and his other works also diverge from the norm of the fantasy tropes. I am eager to read his book The Goblin Corps, which is apparently a novel told from the perspective of a bunch of goblins, who are usually cannon-fodder in other fantasy books, games, movies, etc. I am big fan of Marmell and, honestly, I think he may write some of the best dialogue I've I've ever read. Read it. It's worth your time.
As cultural perceptions change, we are bound to start seeing more variety in our fiction. Female characters have been taking a greater role in fantasy. The "boys only" concept of fantasy is already viewed as outdated. Racial and cultural diversity is being given greater emphasis. It's a matter of the new, young authors taking steps to look at the existing tropes and finding ways to turn them on their head.


TL;DR - Gimme the Bullet Points!

- Lord of the Rings made fantasy popular, but it's not the only epic out there.
- Not all fantasy is influenced by LOTR. In fact, there's some very popular stuff that was never touched by Tolkien's influence.
- The future of fantasy is diverse, glorious, and is not doomed to endless repetitions.
- Fantasy is evolving, shifting, changing as our cultural perceptions are changing.
- There will always be imitators of great authors - Imitation is still the sincerest (if most annoying) form of flattery.
- If a fantasy novel/movie/show/series/product moves you emotionally or really draws your interest, that is marvelous! Don't let anyone tell you that you don't like "good" fantasy. It's all subjective anyway.

So...

Is there a work of epic/high fantasy you feel really moved you? Do you feel that fantasy is played out? What's your favorite world to lose yourself in? You can always reply here on the blog, or hit me up on Twitter @colinjmarco. I look forward to hearing what fantasy you enjoy. My particular tastes are pretty broad, running the gamut from anime like Record of Lodoss War, games like D&D/Pathfinder, movies like Clash of the Titans, and lots more. Let me know what you think. Am I out to lunch? 

*****

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the good kind of crazy. Find me on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr. Watch out for my fantasy-themed spring: interviews with fantasy authors, content related to fantasy films and reviews, and some political commentary--the phuquerie you've come to expect from me. Keep checking back to see those surprise posts, too. This is your darling SciFiMagpie, over and out!