The Science Fiction is Settled

Science Fiction is the fiction of Ideas. It’s the testing ground for the possible and the impossible. It asks questions. The most important being “What if?” And then it tries out the answers, trying to find the moral or scientific answers to questions Humanity hasn’t faced for real yet. And often these extrapolations come up with some very uncomfortable answers.

For instance, What if we could clone people? Are they the same person or not? Are they people at all? If they are not, can we harvest their organs to save the life of the original person? Pretty much all of the answers can be pretty horrifying, as are the solutions to the issues they raise as well.

Not every science fiction story is going to be all skittles and cream. A story can be great and make us think and still be horrible to contemplate. Nobody reads 1984 and thinks the world it portrays is something wonderful they’d like to be a part of. Well, nobody SANE, but there are plenty of people who have no problem with Winston Smith’s image of the future, as long as it’s their boot and someone else’s face being smashed forever.

But some out there do not like hearing contrary voices. They don’t like anything that disagrees with the conclusions they’ve already arrived at (or had spoon-fed to them). The uncomfortable questions and disturbing answers are not for them. They want affirmation. Science Fiction that does not support their dogma is an offense to them. It’s not enough that they don’t have to read it, they don’t want anyone else to read it either. They don’t want it to exist. And they will use social pressure, blackballing and worse to make this so.

So I was recently shown a link to an essay on the website of Amazing Stories (a Canonical example of the fourth step of Burge’s Law of Institutional Liberalization) written by David Gerrold, and in the beginning, he gets it. He states the purpose of Science Fiction reasonably well:

This is the primary function of science fiction — to be the Research and Development Division of the Human Species. This literature is the laboratory in which we consider the universe and our place in it. It is the place where we ask, “Who are we and what is our purpose here? What does it mean to be a human being?”

Well, his basic questions are a bit more narcissistic, a bit more reflective of the turn in SF from Hard Science to Soft Science. My example of cloning above certainly fits that, but the Universe is bigger than just us Human Beings. Narrowing down the question so far can focus on the inconsequential parts of a much bigger idea, like a Golgafrenchim Marketing Consultant holding up the development of the wheel because they’re not sure what color to make it.

Now, Gerrold’s theme at the start of his editorial is Change, and in that context, I can fully endorse this passage:

No other genre is as ambitious, no other genre considers as many powerful and disturbing questions. All the other branches of literature are about the past, they’re about how we got here, as if here is a static place. Only science fiction is about the future. Only science fiction is about change.

And then, tragedy strikes. Because to Gerrold, Change has an Arrow on it, with a single destination, and it’s pointing to the left. He launches into a paean about Immigrants and diversity and the global village because Diversity is Strength! And then:

So, yes, it is inevitable that science fiction authors will explore that diversity — expanded roles for women, new definitions of gender and sexuality, the contributions of People of Color and other non-white ethnicities. We’ve discovered the overlooked skills of the aged and the disabled, the unusual and extraordinary ratiocinations of people who are neuro-atypical. The next generation of authors are exploriong [sic -M.] vast new landscapes of possibility — places to explore and discover ways of being human previously unconsidered.

It’s not that SF CAN explore those things, but that SF SHOULD explore those things he seems to think. Forget exploring the stars or asking “What if we’re not alone in the universe?” Nah, we’re alone, so let’s spend all our speculative energies on exploring our own bad selves. He grudgingly admits that while we have probes going past Pluto, “some of our most ambitious authors are turning their attention to a different frontier —exploring the workings of the human soul.” I suppose our navels give us much more instantaneous gratification than the stars. But really, that kind of narcissism is only interesting to the narcissist.

And at this point, we can see where the train leaves the tracks, because he switches from talking about science fiction, to the science fiction community, while trying to carry the same points. He talks about the changes in the SF Community from all these new folks of diverse backgrounds showing up. The only problem with this theory is that they have always been here. There’s a case of DoubleThink going on here when the same folks who like to claim Mary Shelley as one of the first female authors of Science Fiction then set it out there as if women are something new, and it’s even more patronizing when they act as if their side’s genuflecting to Feminism is somehow responsible for their appearance. No, this is not a change. Try reading some C.L. Moore and realize that not only have women been in SF all along, they have been awesome.

Likewise with minority writers. The publishing world is, or at least was, the ultimate meritocracy. Since most of the business was conducted by mail, a publisher had no clue about the racial background of an author. Bias was eliminated through the medium of the Manila envelope. It takes very little research to find out that Black authors have been writing science fiction since the turn of the century. No, not this century, the previous one. Likewise for Gay authors, an obvious example being from the previous list, Samuel R. Delany. He was first published in 1962. That’s FIFTY FIVE years ago. This “change” Gerrold is touting really is nothing new.

If there is a change, it is that today we are seeing a push to elevate these diverse backgrounds above the quality of the work. Bloggers are pledging to read only female authors for a year, magazines are organized around the author’s sexuality. And that is a change that can only work to the detriment of the genre. But this gets worse.

Gerrold says that these writers are writing for themselves, the stories they want to read, and writing their own experiences into them. This is also nothing new in Science Fiction. Fandom even has a word for these kinds of stories: Mary Sue. Yes, most writers write for themselves, this is why there are slushpiles and fanfiction websites (And some might say Indy). SUCCESSFUL writers write for everyone. They write for an audience, and reach across self-imposed barriers that pigeonhole humanity into narrow little categories.

Pigeonholes are small, maybe they’re comfortable, but they are narrow. And if you’re writing for a narrow audience, that’s going to be a small and unremarkable work. And with a genre being aimed at small sub-groups of the fandom, rather than at those ideas that are common across all of fandom, the fiction shrinks. And that can be proven simply by looking at the sales figures for science fiction even compared to the shrinking book market, and declining SF magazine sales, and the shift from literary to media fandom. Literary SF, pursuing the change Gerrold is lauding, has ill-served the audience, and they’re turning away from it. I guess fans don’t like being pigeonholed.

And this is where he starts throwing shit at people. Or rather, straw men. You see, packed into this essay, which by the halfway point has devolved into a thinly disguised attack on anyone who didn’t take his side in the Hugo Wars, he dismisses anyone who objects to this change which is strangling SF as having trivial reasons, e.g. “This isn’t what I expected,” and “This isn’t the way things are supposed to be,” and “I don’t like broccoli.” Seriously, he runs with that last one. Apparently wanting science fiction to explore big ideas as it always has, instead of reveling in an author’s reflections on what it means to be a member of the intersection of fifteen different minority statuses, with a smidge of SF-nal window dressing, is clinging to outmoded tradition and akin to disliking vegetables as a child might. (Or perhaps he has never forgiven President George H.W. Bush for famously refusing to eat broccoli on Air Force One once. Folks of his stripe have knitted LONG enemies lists.)

You see, all this introduction about SF being about Change, and defining that change as the emergence of narcissistic navel-gazing natterings is just so that he can call out anyone who doesn’t embrace that as neanderthalic bigoted throwbacks.

Instead of discussing the content and the quality of the stories, some people made derogatory comments [about] the race, gender, sexual orientation, and behaviors of other authors. These were comments that were rooted in bigotry. I should point out here that bigotry is not an expression of hatred as much as it is a demonstration of fear, insecurity, and cowardice. It’s natural to fear the unknown — real courage is embracing it.

God help me, but I’m gonna invoke Vox Day. “SJW’s Always Project.” And here’s the perfect illustration of DARVO and Gaslighting. Since the Puppies were always about the quality of the stories, and Gerrold’s side has always been about denigrating writers on the basis of their race (if white), Gender (if male), sexual orientation (if straight), etc. He’s managed to swap the sides in this statement, trying to claim the moral high ground, and in the process ceding that the other side had it. As an old white male himself, Gerrold had best tread carefully among his fellows, since he’s terribly short on intersectionality points.

And that, perhaps is the real point of this essay. One which he inadvertently makes himself, if you’re not viewing it through SJW lenses. He must maintain his cred that he’s one of them.

There’s an old Russian story about a Communist party meeting, and when the party chairman’s name is mentioned, it is required to stand and applaud his name. The clapping continues and continues, loudly and uproariously because nobody wants to be the first one to stop clapping. After ten or fifteen minutes, the audience is in agony, but nobody dares to stop out of fear. Simply put, because even though it gives everyone else the excuse to finally stop, the first to stop is never seen or heard from again.

This is the danger of playing the Virtue Signaling game. And he goes right out and illustrates this as if it were proper thinking.

Larry Niven has wisely said: Never throw shit at an armed man. Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man.[Italics added -M.] In fact, one could distill this into a much more general rule. Never throw shit. Never stand next to anyone throwing shit.
This is profoundly good advice.
There has been too much shit-flinging. Monkeys are good at it, but human beings have made it an art form. Some of us enjoy shit-flinging so much that we forget we’re human beings, we become fecal trebuchets.

Now this is extraordinary advice, considering the speaker was the Master of Ceremonies at the single greatest celebration of shit flinging in the entire history of SF Fandom (One of his claims to fame in his bio at the end of the piece). This is a classic example of “Let’s stop after I get my last shot in.” Of course, on the internet, nobody gets the last word, not even me.

So again, he’s projecting his sins upon others. (Also, he missed the point of the Niven quote.)

And why? Because for the next few screens worth, he goes on and on about one single idea. “So let’s have this conversation be about remembering our essential humanity — and what we must do to preserve it. It’s this simple. If someone is throwing shit, verbal or otherwise, silence is interpreted as agreement.” [Bold mine. -M]

Fine, this is why I am not being silent, because he has been at the forefront of the gang denying people’s essential humanity. And this goes back to well before the Hugo Wars. He blocked me on Facebook ages ago when I took offense to one of his many (since purged) screeds about how Republicans should be put to death that came up on a liberal friend’s feed. The list of shit he’s thrown, and shit he’s been silent and complicit about is long and horrid, and I’m sure he feels smugly satisfied about every single turd.

But there’s the root of it. This is why he has to make this point calling everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest misogynist, racist, and homophobic. Because in SJW-land, you HAVE to. If you miss one Two Minutes Hate, then your silence is interpreted as agreement, and they will attack you twice as bad for being a traitor to the cause.

And we have seen this a lot lately. Black Feminists calling out White Feminists for trying to be allies, but not getting it the right way. The Liberal coprophagic cannibalism has been amusing to those of us who don’t play that game, and must be absolutely terrifying to those who do. They are required to speak up, because remember, silence = consent (Except during sex, then it’s all “Mother may I?” every ten minutes, minimum), but get it wrong — and there is no right answer for an angry enough questioner — and it’s the Gulag for you!

Everyone’s pretending to be a piranha as hard as they can, because they’re afraid of being found out as a fake and eaten first. So that is why Gerrold wrote this screed, to prove that he’s still one of them. He wrote it to try to enforce uniformity in the Fandom mind by insisting that anyone who objects to the state of things in the genre is only a racist, sexist, homophobe, and should a) shut up, b) join him in condemning anyone else who disagrees (because silence is just as bad). And he wrote it to trivialize any disagreement. He invokes the war of the Lilliputians over which end of a soft-boiled egg to break as an example of how unimportant Fanish infighting is (unless it’s about a plastic rocket award). We should all just be of one mind and side with him and everything will be fine, as long as we keep virtue-signaling every time we open our mouths and condemning the unbelievers.

And of course, this constant stream of virtue signaling must be reflected in all of SF’s writing too, even if it doesn’t sell or entertain, because nobody wants to be the first Communist to stop clapping. But if we are all in harmony and agreement, where do the new ideas come from? Where do the debates and intellectual discussions come from? Where is the future in looking at ourselves in the now? If everything is static and centered about narcissistic navel gazing, then where does the change come from? You know, I think I’ve read a few SF stories about how dystopic societies where uniformity of thought was enforced are. We could learn from that.

As for Gerrold, the man can fold himself until he’s all sharp corners and stick it up his asterisk.

83 thoughts on “The Science Fiction is Settled

  1. As a footnote, “Burge’s Law of Institutional Liberalization” is the name I’ve coined for a meme that has been going around for quite a while in conservative circles, originally posted to Twitter by Iowahawk, David Burge. It goes:
    1. Identify a respected institution.
    2. Kill it.
    3. Gut it.
    4. Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

    • Given the comments of the Amazing Stories owner over the years, the suit is getting rather thread-bare. Hugo would laugh at him.

    • Power-seekers:
      Go where there’s power to be had.
      Find ways to abuse it.
      Try to blame bad results and departing customers
      on the customers
      and the competition.

      There’s a reason such people love government; government is required
      to be or enact or enforce the monopoly required
      to prevent the customers from switching.

      There’s a reason such people are “better-thans”; if you want to abuse power
      the people you intend to abuse need to be deplorable
      so that your abuse is justified.

      Et cetera.

      Also, re “It’s natural to fear the unknown — real courage is embracing it.”
      In a story, this is the sort of pompous gobbledygook you’d have some academic or political know-nothing afraid-of-everything spout before you killed him off.

  2. *Boggles a bit*

    SciFi explores the interior via exploring the exterior– drawing a line between “looking beyond” and “looking inward” is nonsense, at least on par with the notion of exploring inward in only one direction!!!!

  3. What I continue to find hilarious about Mr. Gerrold and his virtue-signalling cohort, including but not limited to the Dire Swamp of China Mike, is that they are STILL talking about Sad Puppies while the rest of us have moved on. It is almost as if they have nothing else to talk about.

    Most delicious this last little while has been the number of these virtue-signalling weenies that have been outed as woman molesters. I have always wondered what was driving the continual drip-feed of depravity in modern culture. Since the 1960’s, every year they reach a new low in movies, music and books/stories. Now I know. They’re perverts of the lowest possible sort, seeking to drive the rest of us down to their level.

    It makes me wonder if David Gerrold is looking over his shoulder at on-rushing Doom since Kevin Spacey was outed as a child molester. I have no information to that effect, and I hasten to add I have heard no stories about Gerrold in that regard. But the pervasiveness of the blight among the Taste Makers and Leftist Cognoscenti is wide and deep, so I do wonder.

    As well, now that GamerGate seems to have run its course, the number of SJW males in that farce who have since been charged with sexual assault is large. Most of them seem to be using the Feminist Ally label to cover for some very deep sated and disturbing misogyny.

    How does that Alinsky Rule 4 thing go? “Make them follow their own rules.” Its a good time to enjoy popcorn and tankards of SJW tears.

    • The Sad Puppies made Dave and his peeps SO MADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD that he and they just can’t get over it. Sad Puppies, living rent-free in their heads. Heh.

    • They don’t have anything else. It’s like how the “I’m With Her” people were all smugly declaring that the Trump supporters and Republicans would have to accept the election results ‘when she won.’

      Now they’re screeching and screaming still, that the election results aren’t valid because it wasn’t Clinton who won. In the wake of that, we have Antifa and all these ‘resisters’ and ‘revolutionaries’ – who are revolting for the simple, petty reason that they didn’t get their way.

      The arrow trajectory they imagine is valid to other things, not just SFF.

      • They’ve been gutting SF and wearing as a suit, is the short answer. As part of their campaign to elect Dear Leader Hillary

        Some of us down here in the pants region put up a fight and busted their noses. Now they are pouting. Like bullies always do. Dear Leader lost, so clearly that’s our fault as well.

        I’m pretty pleased about the whole thing, really. >:D

  4. Likewise with minority writers. The publishing world is, or at least was, the ultimate meritocracy. Since most of the business was conducted by mail, a publisher had no clue about the racial background of an author. Bias was eliminated through the medium of the Manila envelope. It takes very little research to find out that Black authors have been writing science fiction since the turn of the century. No, not this century, the previous one. Likewise for Gay authors, an obvious example being from the previous list, Samuel R. Delany. He was first published in 1962. That’s FIFTY FIVE years ago. This “change” Gerrold is touting really is nothing new.

    Therein lies the rub, you see. They have to BE the newest and greatest thing, the SHINIEST THING, NEVER BEFORE SEEN! … else they are nothing, if nowhere else but in their own minds. It is unacceptable that there ever were other women authors / minority authors … so the other ones have to ‘not count’ in some way. They have to claim outright that nobody before them had Done This Thing – you’ve seen the ridiculous little picture book illustration that claims that no woman had ever done anything important before Hillary came along, right? That’s right, no woman has ever done anything of importance or value until Hillary came along – Screw you, Marie Curie! Sod off, Sappho! Annie Oakley? Meh. Laura Ingalls Wilder? Whos that? Anne McCaffrey or Andre Norton? Naaah, they don’t count as authors. Never mind that Golda Meier, Margaret Thatcher, or Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who governed countries… HILLARY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FIRST YOU KNOW! In EVERYTHING~~~!!!

    In writing this, I realized… how awful it must be, to be a minority and a woman in the Left. The wrong move will get your achievements, your work, even your life erased (from recognition at the very least)… and the next ambitious, more connected and more powerful woman could erase all of that in a bid to get more attention. For the next Most Important Person According To The Left… nobody else matters, nobody else existed.

    So they ALL have to be The Most Important. Somehow. In order to prevent their being erased. To constantly have to fight for ‘their right to be’ – and because they cannot – MUST NOT!- ever say that it is their own fellows who would bury them, they have to blame the ones who have nothing to do with it. Those who are busy doing their own thing, living their lives, minding their own business. To the Left, it seems like an Unforgivable Thing – how can these people, how dare they exist, live, create, work… without suffering the same way we do?!

    So these people too, must be subjected to the same rules and endless competition and backstabbing that the Left uses to control their own.

    • Shadow said: “In writing this, I realized… how awful it must be, to be a minority and a woman in the Left.”

      Imagine for a moment working at The New Republic, which remains THE place for political and culture writers on the Left to get noticed.

      You have a sexual predator as the publisher, and your top editor is also a sexual predator. And EVERYONE in management knows it. They in fact actively cover for these two predators, and probably others that have yet to come to light.

      The other men who work there think whatever they think, but you, office woman, don’t know what that is, because they SAY nothing. When they see other men and women being actively and loudly bullied in meetings every goddamn day, they say nothing. When the Sexy Editor actively handles women in front of the whole office, tells crude jokes, etc. in their presence, they say nothing.

      Because they are physical and moral cowards.

      And people wonder why drug abuse is so rampant in the Lefty creative set.

      But Flopatron and David F-ING Gerrold can’t find anything to talk about but the last bunch of people who stood up to them and told them to cram it. Two fricking years ago.

        • That is very true. Which is going to make it SO sweet when we succeed and they kind of just shrivel up and blow away.

          Success and happiness is the best revenge.

          You know what? I’m on my fifth book right now. There’s a houseboat named Skithblathnir. I’m trying to decide what awe-inspiring weapon I can put in it that they can actually shoot somebody with that won’t destroy Amsterdam. I’m thinking something sneaky. Like nanodissasembler. What’s sneakier than that?

          • “It fires Fractal Cratering Charges.”

            “What’s that do?”

            “I dunno, nobody’s brave enough to try it.”

            • I actually have one of those. The Jysetha Gun. Because the Universe has 28 dimensions, the gun transposes something from 3D to ~23D. What’s here goes there, what’s there comes here. Somewhere up around dimension 17 is the closed end of a 5/8ths wrench. Here it looks like a chrome green pepper. That breathes. Nothing creepy, just nice, gentle breathing.

              Developed for fighting demons. Because of their extra-dimensional structure, given sufficient input power the Jysetha gun will scatter your average demon in burning chunks for 800 yards in all directions. They mounted it on a Valkyrie, in case they might need to give Cthulhu a send off back to R’lyeh.

              Problem is, when the target is not a demon, you never know what you’re going to get…

    • Kind of like deep-form Stalinism at the height of the Cult of Personality – Comrade Stalin was the greatest philosopher, scientist, thinker, ever …. he stayed up all night watching out for the good of The People !

      • Well, it still is an extension of the Cult of Personality, except it is more of a Cult of Ideology, and their Idols are easily replaced.

        The challenge is to stay on the pedestal, draping themselves in the paste gems and polyester silk of their virtue-signaling and singing the hollow echoes of their screed-of-the-moment.

        • It’s still a cult of personality.
          There’s an old Soviet joke (circa 30s).

          “Three men sit in a jail cell.
          One of them finally asks: “So, what brought you here?”
          Another replies: “I criticized Bukharin”.
          The third man adds: “And I praised Bukharin”.
          The first one says: “Oh, and I am Bukharin”.”

          Leaders can (and do) change, but the cult of personality stays.
          It’s convenient.

      • “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” — Barack Obama.

        Presented without further comment on what we’ve had for the last 8 years.

        • *sad*
          You know, that really COULD have been an incredible moment of humility– if he’d continued on and said something like “That’s my problem. I always think I can do it better, if I’d just focus on it– and even if I was right, I have to work to accept that I can’t. They’ve gotta be allowed to do their job to support what I am doing, or it all crashes.”

          • Sure it could have. But if he was that guy, every American with a brain wouldn’t have spent 8 years stockpiling guns and ammunition.

    • “your achievements, your work, even your life erased”

      Shadow, it’s worse even than that: it’s that they have set up a system where every achievement, every work, comes with a niggling little assterisk of doubt: Did I get it because I as an individual did something that anyone would admire….. or because I was patted on the head and handed a cookie just because Mommy and Daddy loved me as a child seen and not heard? How depressing.

    • Ever notice that the “HILLARY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FIRST YOU KNOW! In EVERYTHING~~~!!!” crowd believes that Sally Ride was the first female in space?

      • I’m surprised they praise any other woman at all.
        More recently I have observed that they are the ones castigating Trump for not calling for the death penalty to be applied on already dead people (such as the Vegas shooter and the recent Texas shooter.) They do this very seriously, and then usually screech about how ‘white men get off lightly.’ I don’t really expect any intelligence to show when they’re in the midst of their hysteria.

  5. And there’s China Mike. Just like clockwork. Spin the hands, the little bird pops out. Cuckoo!

    Hey Mikey. How do you feel, as a Feminist Ally and all, about every Lefty media outlet in the land being run by molesters?

    Mr. Floppy seems much more interested in the long departed Sad Puppies. I find his odd focus a bit disturbing. Almost as if he didn’t care a damn about women.

  6. Heh. I’m sure Dr. Mauser remembers that one of Gerrold’s earlier works was, in fact, “The Man Who Folded Himself.”

    • Hence the closing line. Yeah, take two Heinlein stories, “All You Zombies” and “By His Bootstraps” remove the clever avoidance of paradox, and turn it into a book. Kinda like how “The Trouble with Tribbles” resembles the Martian Flatcats subplot from “The Rolling Stones”.

  7. Since I already have too many science fiction books, I have a really simplifying 1st filter…only consider purchasing or reading a new book if it is published by Baen or Castalia.

  8. Fine post! Altho I think SJ “Warrior” is too complimentary — how about Social Justice Despot? That’s what the PC-nazis are, little fantasy despots.

  9. “…realize that not only have women been in SF all along, they have been awesome.”

    Nah, they have been mediocre.

    “Likewise for Gay authors, an obvious example being from the previous list, Samuel R. Delany.”

    When I was a kid, I used to browse the bookstores obsessively. One science fiction book I was always attracted to (the cover, the typset, the sense of apocalyptic heft) was Delaney’s ‘Dahlgren.’ Very early in the book, you encounter his sexual weirdness-even as a kid (say, around 12) I knew it was disgusting crap.

    Its weird to read a reactionary/conservative essay on the state of science fiction (which I would approve of), and see the same left-wing/progressive block-checking of minorities/women/gays that one would expect from an academic. Its as if you don’t even understand your own topic.

    ‘Modern progressives are wrong because they reduce the story to the author. And here’s the authors that I have always read that check those blocks, anyway-so they are actually right, and I have been right (under the standards this post is devoted to decrying) all along! I’m reactionary, but progressive too!’

    Its really bizarre-point out the ‘virtue-signaling cohort’ while simultaneously virtue-signaling; UNDER THE SAME SET OF VIRTUES!


    • “Nah, they have been mediocre.”

      In your humble opinion.

      You’ve rather missed the point: these writers aren’t great because of the boxes they checked; they’re great because they looked outside the boxes and presented tales anyone could read, enjoy, and learn from.

    • “Nah, they have been mediocre.”

      I agree. The best of the lot remains Ursula K. LeGuin and even when the ideas (social science) she puts into play are of interest, the storytelling is slow and dull.

      “…Delaney’s ‘Dahlgren.’ Very early in the book, you encounter his sexual weirdness-even as a kid (say, around 12) I knew it was disgusting crap.”

      Remarkable. I formed the same opinion at about the same age.

      • Zenna Henderson, Suzette Hadin Elgin, Lois McMaster Bujold, Andre Norton, Leigh Brackett, C.J. Cherryh…

        Lots of great reads, that are still re-readable today.

    • Something about this comment always bugged me, and I just figured it out. You got me wrong there. While yes, I praised C. L. Moore, that was not what the “Likewise” was tying into. I was not praising Delaney, merely pointing out his existence as a counter to their idea that Minority and/or gay SF authors are something new in the field brought about by their SJW-ism.

      MY point is that it’s unimportant.
      THEIR point is that it’s new and special.
      I’m shooting down their point by showing that it’s not new or special, and certainly not anything they deserve credit for.

  10. And what China Mike of Vile770 fails to get, from the excerpt he took from this that really pushes the limits of Fair Use, is that pointing out that Gerrold is gay and has been writing SF since the ’60 only proves my point, that Gays in SF are nothing new, and not part of some recent change. I didn’t use him as an example deliberately.

    • Mike’s not interested in your point. He’s got his agenda, and he bends every post to forwarding that agenda. Lying about what you said is par for the course. That’s why we don’t like him.

      On the bright side, the more he does this the worse he looks. And your stats no doubt reflect the tiny amount of traffic that trackback brought with it. If he keeps doing it, eventually it’ll be him, Floppy and Davidson linking to each other, five times a day.

  11. Huh. I seem to remember that Gerrold named the planet on which The Trouble With Tribbles takes place “Sherman’s Planet.” It referred to a girlfriend of Gerrold, Holly Sherman. Was that girlfriend really Harold Sherman, and Gerrold getting an early start on the first law of SJWs? Or was Gerrold not gay in 1966?

    If one wonders how I can remember crap like that, back in the early 1970s, there was Nothing To Read in SF. That began to change in the very late 1970s, but I read and reread anything I could find.

  12. Gerrold’s perception of all these things SF has done for decades as “new” and “change” — just suggests his own youthful reading list must have been horribly shallow and narrow. Sad!

    To apply it to everyone else in spite of all the evidence to the contrary? Best characterized by General Honore’s comment to another wordsmith who was similarly trying to be clever: “don’t be stuck on stupid!”

  13. Point of minor interest, Flopatron seems to have taken the deletion of his trolling rather hard, and has a huge long “takedown” of this post on his Flopatronian swamp. The usual tenuous connection with facts is evident.

    Still nothing to talk about, I guess.

  14. […] The Science Fiction is Settled Science Fiction is the fiction of Ideas. It’s the testing ground for the possible and the impossible. It asks questions. The most important being “What if?” And then it tries out the answers, trying to find the moral or scientific answers to questions Humanity hasn’t faced for real yet. And often these extrapolations come up with some very uncomfortable answers. […]

Comments are closed.