Previous Entry | Next Entry

Pixel-stained technopeasant wretch

  • Apr. 15th, 2007 at 9:05 AM
rengeek the puppet (poisoninjest)
[info]papersky has declared Monday April 23rd to be International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day.

She says, in part:

In honour of Dr Hendrix, I am declaring Monday 23rd April International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day. On this day, everyone who wants to should give away professional quality work online. It doesn't matter if it's a novel, a story or a poem, it doesn't matter if it's already been published or if it hasn't, the point is it should be disseminated online to celebrate our technopeasanthood.

Whatever you're posting should go on your own site. I'll make a post here on the day and people can post links in comments to whatever they're putting up on. If you are a member of SFWA, or SFWA qualified but not a member (like me) you get extra pixel-spattered points for doing this. If other people want to collect the links too, that would be really cool. Please disseminate this information widely.


Yeah, yeah, I've been staying out of the SFWA thing because I frankly don't care [/Tommy Lee Jones]. I'm not a member anymore, and I don't expect to be ever again.

But it's hard to let this pass:

I'm also opposed to the increasing presence in our organization of webscabs, who post their creations on the net for free.  A scab is someone who works for less than union wages or on non-union terms; more broadly, a scab is someone who feathers his own nest and advances his own career by undercutting the efforts of his fellow workers to gain better pay and working conditions for all. Webscabs claim they're just posting their books for free in an attempt to market and publicize them, but to my mind they're undercutting those of us who aren't giving it away for free and are trying to get publishers to pay a better wage for our hard work.

--Howard V. Hendrix, SFWA's current Veep, as reprinted by Will Shetterly.

[info]nihilistic_kid, with whom I often disagree, nevertheless knows a lot about labor unions and comments here on the fallacious definition of scab.

[info]scalzi responds at length here.

As the granddaughter of a union plumber, raised in a staunchly pro-union household, and--apparently--a webscab, I have this to say: if SFWA were an effective labor union, in touch with the realities of publishing in the 21st century and interested in serving the professional needs of its members, I would rejoin in an instant.

It isn't.

And this purblind sentiment is an example of why, and how it got that way.

Unofficial writer's organizations (Critters, the OWW, Forward Motion, the Rumor Mill) do a far better job of serving my needs as an independent artist than SFWA does. If I were working in Hollywood, I'd join the Writer's Guild. I still pay dues to the Author's Guild, which is at least marginally more effectual than SFWA, and I'm far enough on the outside that I don't notice whatever mindless infighting there might be.

But it's not just selfish laziness that keeps me from joining any attempt to reform SFWA. In other reasons:

1) it's not my job--I have no investment in the organization, and the organization is set up to insure that I never develop one, and when I did, some time ago, attempt to answer honestly a question regarding why younger SFF writers weren't joining, I got alternately tarred-and-feathered and told that if I wanted the organization different, it was my job to change it, which kind of defeated the point of the original question.... which soured me on the whole thing somewhat. (Don't ask if you don't want to know.) 

2) I actually suspect there is no salvaging SFWA, but I'm pleased that there are people who want to try, and I'm not about to get in their way. I will cheer from the sidelines and bring lemonade and gatorade and soda pop, how's that?

3) I think it would be easier, frankly, to form a new trade organization (one that's interested in actually defending authors' rights, not arguing over codes of conduct,  having flamewars, holding award ceremonies, practicing bizarre policies of secrecy, and panicking about e-piracy) and start from scratch.

No, I'm not willing to organize one. I'm not an organizationally talented person, and I'm not a politician, and I'm certainly not a leader, and I'm not much of a joiner either.

I know my limits.

(Although that would be a great indicator of a trade union I might want to join right there: No awards. Ever. Except service awards.)

So, Howard, no worries about rotting the organization from within, at least from my direction.  I'll do my rotting from without, like a proper scab.

I'm leaving comments on this entry open, but I won't be responding to them. I have to clean my house and do laundry and watch Doctor Who today. So, you know, knock yourselves out.

In the meantime, there are some links to some of my free online fiction in my CV, here.

(eta: [info]suricattus points out rightly in comments that it's not a union, and never was one. Fair enough, and my mistake in adopting HVH's metaphor without clarifying. It's also not an effective trade organization, although I hear tell it was one, once.)


Comments

( 28 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]suricattus wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 12:55 pm (UTC)
Just as a point of information: SFWA is not now, nor has it ever been, a union. Not in pretty much any definition of the term, most especially the legal one.

/nitpicking.



[info]matociquala wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 12:57 pm (UTC)
Fair enough. I was adopting Howard's metaphor. *g*

(Look at me, already responding. I will correct the entry to clarify.)
[info]suricattus wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 01:26 pm (UTC)
the best way to look at SFWA is through the lens of a very large, very disorganized professional gathering with mostly good intentions and an ocasional happy result.

And a calander of flame wars we follow with distressing regularity, especially when someone decides to reinvent a better (i.e. 'their') wheel, and other members hold fast to the Wheel of Yore.

Putting the fun back into dysfunctional, yah.

(sayeth the Lifetime Member/EMF volunteer)
[info]ohilya wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 05:55 pm (UTC)
*grin*

There's a Beckett metaphor in here somewhere, right?
[info]juliansinger wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 06:03 pm (UTC)
That's actually in large part why I first objected so much to HVH's screed. He was using a word that meant something extremely specific in a very particular context, except he removed it from its context and converted it to mean something else entirely.

(Then I read the rest of it and my eyes rolled out of my head, but anyway.)
[info]jim0052 wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 01:04 pm (UTC)
Re: if SFWA were still an effective labor union

To my knowledge, SFWA never has been a labor union. While it does set minimum rates for joining, its members remain free to sell their material below those rates -- or even to give it away, if they so desire. Once you join the Writers Guild of America, on the other hand, you are not allowed to work for below scale on penalty of being ejected and blacklisted.

SFWA, rather, is an association of professionals which sets its own standards for membership and, among other things, works to defend authors' rights and protect authors -- both individually and collectively -- from abuses by publishers and scam artists.

At least, that was the SFWA I joined, lo, these many years ago.
[info]scarlettina wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 03:44 pm (UTC)
Well, that's the SFWA I joined (or, rather, the SFWA I hoped I'd joined), but I remain unconvinced that it's the SFWA we get 24/7. We so often get more of the flame-war/rumor-mill/nit-picking SFWA that it's a breath of fresh air when we do get the SFWA you describe.
[info]dewline wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 01:04 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the links, for the info on the argument and for one other thing:

I did NOT know Mr. Shetterly had an LJ, and I consider that knowledge to be some of the happier fallout of this dispute in progress.
[info]hundakleptisis wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 02:45 pm (UTC)
LOL At one SF con I had a SFWA rep come up and try push me into joining SFWA and I kept telling her I couldn't. Repeatedly.

Finally I had to explain, carefully, that I don't fit into their acceptance requirements at the time (may have changed by now) since I've only had ebooks published...

I've never seen anyone vanish faster, and she never spoke to me for the rest of the Con.

:)

S.J.
[info]mmerriam wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 02:49 pm (UTC)
SFWA lost me forever when I asked why one short fiction sale to a pro magazine shows demonstrated intent of establishing a professional writing career, but not a string of solid semi-pro sales at a reasonable rate of, say, $25 to $50+ dollars (using the HWA example)?

According to people at SFWA: "If you don't qualify, it's because SFWA is of no value to YOU at this point in time" and that if they added people like me it would "be a quadratic increase in the griefcom workload."

But, if I made one sale to Asimov's or F&SF, that would all magically change overnight.

Um, no.

If it is true that SFWA is of no value to me now, I fail to see how it will be of value to me tomorrow when I make the one pro sale and qualify for affiliate membership.

Being called a webscab was just the icing on the cake.
[info]suricattus wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 03:25 pm (UTC)
I am not a SFWA apologist (I've been in the middle of the Requalification scrum on the side of the devils, and been called rather rude names for it) but there iS value in the organization, and a reason for it to exist -- if only for the Emergency Medical Fund and various legal and contractual services provided to members that might otherwise be out of their reach.

Like any organization of more than two people, there are good folk, and there are assholes. Ask me some day about HWA, which I quit in disgust on multiple fronts....




[info]mmerriam wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 03:32 pm (UTC)
I didn't bother joining HWA, even though I qualify for an affiliate membership. I had too many people warn me away from the ogranization and horror isn't my main focus anyway.

[info]dwer wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 03:00 pm (UTC)
Doesn't the Baen Online Free Library fly directly in the face of Hendrix's statement? Or are all of those writers -- Eric Flynt, John Ringo, Mercedes Lackey, ect, not part of the SWFA either?
[info]jonquil wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 03:02 pm (UTC)
I got alternately tarred-and-feathered and told that if I wanted the organization different, it was my job to change it,

Gee, *that* sounds awfully familiar.
[info]seajules wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 05:18 pm (UTC)
Indeed it does.
[info]puzzlehouse wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 03:18 pm (UTC)
Giving BLINDSIGHT away was the only way Peter Watts could get it into readers' hands, thanks to Tor's poor job of "promoting" it. Giving it away was what got him the Hugo nomination.

I think I'll go dig out a bunch of things to post on my site.

P.S. I'd pay good money to see what happened if somebody was dumb enough to call Peter a "webscab" to his face.
[info]nihilistic_kid wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 03:34 pm (UTC)
(eta: suricattus points out rightly in comments that it's not a union, and never was one. ...

Indeed, not only is SFWA not a union and was never a union, it cannot be one ever unless the Taft-Hartley law is rescinded. It's a professional association and thus resolutely middle class, which makes Hendrix's use of the word scab even more problematic.

It's one thing to call a scab a scab. Hell, I'm all for calling them scabs, spraypainting the word SCAB on their motor vehicles, homes, lockers, and even faces with this last through the medium of cleverly placed bruises, etc.

It's another thing to call someone who isn't a scab a scab. It's a fighting word, and in some contexts as legally actionable as calling someone a thief or a criminal. It's defamatory.

But when a resolutely middle class individual, who prepares a series of middle class bona fides (the PhD, the lovely mountaintop home, etc.) and speaks as an elected leader of a middle class organization, starts throwing around the s-word as if he's a worker, it is entirely unbearable.
[info]ilona_andrews wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 04:03 pm (UTC)
I still think that my idea of forming USFWW - Uppity SpecFic Writing Wimmens has a lot of merit. And I want to give out Cootie merit awards.
[info]sleary wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 06:10 pm (UTC)
Now that sounds like the kind of organization I'd want to join.
[info]madwriter wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 09:54 pm (UTC)
Ooh! If you ever allow men in as affiliate members, I'll join. :)
[info]muneraven wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 04:11 pm (UTC)
The part that bugged me the most . . .
was not the "scab" bit, which was weak, nor the technopeasant bit, which was at least colorful. It was the implication that those of us who communicate with other writers/readers on the Internets are so weak-minded that our individual ethics are dictated by some sort of insidious hive-mind effect. What a very strange assumption!

I mean, if Bear, Lake, Gaiman, and Scalzi jumped off a cliff, I wouldn't jump too. I'd just rush to their homes, break in, and look for unpublished manuscripts to read. :-P
[info]ckd wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 04:47 pm (UTC)
Re: The part that bugged me the most . . .
I don't know if breaking into Scalzi's house would be a good idea. You might get a nice close-up view of a baseball bat and become a blood-stained technopeasant wretch instead of a merely pixel-stained one.
[info]orphan_ann wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 06:56 pm (UTC)
Re: The part that bugged me the most . . .
Or an axe. Or you might trip on some bacon left lying around. Easier pickings elsewhere, thinks this wretch.
[info]muneraven wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 10:36 pm (UTC)
Re: The part that bugged me the most . . .
Well yes, there is that pesky matter of their families and friends, but I figured I'd just pose as a scholar if I got caught. Anything in order to get my mitts on their final work.

(You know, really, the mental picture of Bear, Scalzi, Lake and Gaiman all choosing to jump off a cliff at the same time is rather funny. They'd each have their own special way of doing it, I'm sure.)
[info]r0ck3tsci3ntist wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 07:00 pm (UTC)
If you completely ignore all that stuff, do you still get to be a writer? :p
[info]rezendi wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 07:33 pm (UTC)
You know, joining SFWA was a childhood/teenage dream of mine - but now, given the recent idiocies, if/when I start writing/selling SF, I may not bother to fulfil that dream.
[info]tiferet wrote:
Apr. 16th, 2007 05:58 am (UTC)
*facepalms*
Howard is normally one of my favourite people but goodness, am I embarrassed to say that right now...in my experience, he is usually not this much of a git.
[info]chrisbillett wrote:
Apr. 16th, 2007 09:56 am (UTC)
I agree with you, Bear! I've no interest in joining them, and all this bitchfighting is quite literally driving me away from teh interwebs. *sigh*

Could be good for my productivity, I guess. I prefer cons for talking, anyway!
( 28 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

new england maple leaves manchesterct
[info]matociquala
it's a great life, if you don't weaken
Elizabeth Bear Dot Com

Latest Month

December 2009
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lizzy Enger