site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Becoming Radicalized by the Hugos

A Very Culture Warrish Review of A Half-Built Garden, by Ruthanna Emrys

In which my fellow nerds will recognize the battlefield and everyone else will roll their eyes and not know who the fuck these people are.

Wordy Pretentious Preamble About My Reading Habits

Everyone remembers the Sad Puppies affair (and the sequel, the Rabids), right? It's been covered here (well, at the old place) before. At the time, I admit to some schadenfreude at the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I thought Vox Day and Larry Correia were making entirely too much of the fact that phallic rocketship stories don't win Hugos anymore. I actually read some of Vox Day's "Hugo Nominated" fiction. He is… not a good writer. I enjoy Larry Correia, but it's bubblegum bang-bang shoot'em up wish fulfillment, which is all well and good, but the same caliber as Ian Fleming's writing – entertaining and marketable and would make for great movies, but not really, well, whatever the Hugos used to represent. Ditto Brad Torgerson; serviceable prose, but fanzine-level execution.

As for the three Johns (Kratman, Ringo, and Wright), I've read all of them, and Kratman and Ringo tell rippin' good yarns with execrable prose and plotting. Only John C. Wright is actually a really good writer (though he does get a bit up his own ass, especially since his conversion to Catholicism).

I'm just saying, if the right wants to reclaim any creative spaces, they need to find better creatives.

Conversely, I used to really like John Scalzi. I watched Vox Day beat him like a pinata online, and though I hadn't gone full anti-SJW yet, I started to think…. "VD is right." His cruel but accurate takedowns were intensely petty, spiteful, and personal, and yet he had the squishy little man pegged.

Scalzi has since become ever more pretentious, ever more virtue signaling, ever more… well, VD would say "effeminate," I'd just say I started to recognize the sight of someone rolling over to show his belly, someone desperate to stay in the good graces of a clique where being a straight white male who cites Heinlein as an inspiration means he's always one bad Tweet away from being consigned to the outer darkness. My fondness for his books curdled, as I started to see his smarmy potato face in all his characters.

As went Scalzi, so went the Hugos, where for the past few years it seems like there's a little bit of straight white guy affirmative action so that John Scalzi and Clarkesworld can stay relevant, but basically it's a women's fiction award now, and if there's ever a white dude-dominated slate again (yet alone a white dude-dominated winners' list), Worldcon will burn.

And ya know, I don't hate women's fiction, or women in SF. I really am an omnivorous reader. But over time, some things have become hard not to notice. Like the fact that N.K. Jemisin is a fanfic-level hack who's fawned over and feted and cooed adoringly as the next Octavia Butler (she's not). Like how Kameron Hurley and Seanan McGuire and Ann Leckie are all decent writers but such insufferably hateful harpies that, like Scalzi, I can't stand to read them anymore.

Vox Day and the alt-right say "Don't give money to people who hate you," but I am not alt-right and have remained determinedly apolitical in my media consumption. But gods help me I'm becoming one of those guys who side-eyes anything written post Great-Awokening by a chick.

Which brings me to…

A Half-Built Garden, by Ruthanna Emrys

A literary descendent of Ursula K. Le Guin, Ruthanna Emrys crafts a novel of extra-terrestrial diplomacy and urgent climate repair bursting with quiet, tenuous hope and an underlying warmth. A Half-Built Garden depicts a world worth building towards, a humanity worth saving from itself, and an alien community worth entering with open arms. It's not the easiest future to build, but it's one that just might be in reach.

I know, I know, I should have paid more attention to that blurb.

I picked this up because it's a First Contact story that got batted around as some new hotness in SF, and I like alien stories with a modern perspective that are more original than "How will we repel the invaders?"

(I like alien invasion and other MilSF stories too, but like I said, I am an omnivorous reader.)

A Half-Built Garden is very likely going to wind up on the Hugo shortlist this year, and probably has a decent chance of winning. It's a well-written, creative story that brings some interesting ideas to the table, it's innovative science fiction…

.. and it's also a meandering, actionless piece of women's fiction dwelling on pronouns, interstellar consent culture, lactating breasts, and internal monologues that all but drowned me in estrogen.

I've seen this book compared to Becky Chambers. I haven't read any of Becky Chambers's books, but they sound exactly like the kind of story I am not interested in (people go to space, have problems which they solve by talking them out in a civilized fashion, the end?).

A Half-Built Garden is "Aliens arrive, people have problems which they solve by talking them out in a civilized fashion, the end."

(1/3)

Do we have good demographic surveys of sci-fi readers? Anecdotally it seems like women read more than men, and surveys of fiction readership that I googled in the last five minutes say a larger share of women read books and they read more books on average. Is the reason that books about woke mom's saving the world is that woke mom's are becoming the modal reader? Or at least that women are the modal reader and women are disproportionately likely to be woke and or moms.

Wokeness is usually understood as a top-down imposition of "the cathedral" (or at least the HR department), but genre fiction taking on the characteristics of women's fiction as women become the majority of fiction consumers seems like a bottom-up process.

There aren't any good public surveys, but most of the limited ones out there still show SF readership skewing male. If this is changing, I would suggest it is "publisher push" and not "reader pull"; as publishers refuse to publish books male readers like because of DEI/feminist issues, male readership goes down.

In the Kindle Unlimited world there are really low barriers to entry for publishing. If someone could make a lot of money publishing books other publisher's wouldn't they'd be doing that.

I'd say it's a "publisher pull" effect where if you're a sci-fi publisher and you're looking at a world where women account for 80% of fiction sales you really want to raise the profile of works catering to women in your genre in hopes of attracting a larger audience.

In the Kindle Unlimited world there are really low barriers to entry for publishing.

Which makes it damn useless for the reader, because the good stuff gets buried in mountains of crap.

I'd say it's a "publisher pull" effect where if you're a sci-fi publisher and you're looking at a world where women account for 80% of fiction sales you really want to raise the profile of works catering to women in your genre in hopes of attracting a larger audience.

This is a view that assumes there's some fixed demographic ratio of "readers", and therefore SF publishers should cater to women because women are the majority of readers. I don't believe this is the case. Instead, many publishers have catered to women for essentially ideological reasons, and in doing so have caused men to stop reading their output, resulting in that lopsided ratio of women to men.

I just think it's unlikely that a large market with low barriers to entry maintains a large inefficiency like that. If you look at Fanfiction where there's no barrier to entry and no gatekeepers the vast majority of writers and readers appear to be women. That can't be explained by ideological capture of Fanfiction.net or something.

It seems plausible to me that there are gendered differences in entertainment preferences. Are men overrepresented in video games because of ideological capture of gaming studios or because of male preference for competition. Perhaps women are over presented in fiction reading because the competitive edge of the novel over other storytelling media is long form character study which appeals more to women?

I just think it's unlikely that a large market with low barriers to entry maintains a large inefficiency like that.

There are not low barriers to entry to publishing. There's low barriers to entry to putting stuff up for Kindle that no one will or should read, but these are not the same thing.

Are men overrepresented in video games because of ideological capture of gaming studios or because of male preference for competition.

We know it isn't ideological capture of gaming studios because ideological capture of gaming studios goes the other way. On the other hand, with (fiction) reading, reading became more and more female as publishers became more and more captured. And publishers which resisted capture kept their male audience.

If there are uncaptured publishers, and massive demand for male oriented fiction that is not being served, why haven't these uncaptured publishers gobbled up market share? Who do you think is an uncaptured publisher?

If there are a bunch of genius male authors being suppressed why don't they put their stuff on Kindle or Fanfiction.net and go viral? A fair number of female authors have turned viral fanfic into successful novels.

And you still haven't explained the gender disparity in fanfic where no barriers to entry exist.

You're assuming the causation is that publisher's are captured so audience's become female but if our only evidence is timing the causation could run the other way. As audiences become more female publisher's cater to female preferences, and women are disproportionately woke. This explanation fits better with the efficient market hypothesis and so I think has Occam on its side.

If there are uncaptured publishers, and massive demand for male oriented fiction that is not being served, why haven't these uncaptured publishers gobbled up market share?

There is only one I know of (Baen)... and they are limited by how much they can publish, about 5 books a month. And it is becoming captured. Capture is not a market force.