sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand
About

Le R. Mère refused to relinquish custody of our first query unless we agreed to publish this item concomitantly, which we present to you without comment, other than to say apparently we were on a roll that day, and that this missive did not secure us an appointment with the president.

Dear Mr. Reagan,

I am going to Washington D.C. I will be there for three days, March 25th thru 28th. I want to see the White House. I am 7 1/2. I like you very much.

Wishing you well,

[The Rejectionist]

[Address]

p.s. My Mommy and Daddy always vote Republican!

Dear Dorrance and Company, (1)

I am 7 1/2 years old (2), and I am writing a book (3) called "The Mystery of the Growling Dog." It is about Kitty Detectives solving a mystery about (4) some strange noises in Kittyland (5). A few weeks ago, I won $25 (second place) in a mystery writing contest (6). I was wondering if you published children's books (7). I would still like your brochure, and my adress (8) and phone number are on the coupon if you would like to call or write to me.

Thank you very much,

[The Rejectionist]

p.s. I would like it if you wrote back to me (9). Thank you!

1. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? Oh, you mean the part where this query is HANDWRITTEN? Do we WRITE OUR QUERIES WITH A PENCIL, Author-friends? Or do we TYPE THEM? HMMM?

2. No one cares how old you are. Child prodigies are a dime a dozen these days, as are teen authors. Leave it out.

3. Do we query before our books are finished, Author-friends? NO WE DO NOT. NO! WE! DO! NOT! WE! FINISH! OUR! BOOKS! BEFORE! WE! QUERY!

4. "About" used 2x in the same sentence, second time improperly; sloppy.

5. What is the mystery? Why should we care? This is not a synopsis! Where is the hook! the intrigue! the pizzazz! Where is Kittyland! Are we talking a Kitty Noir, here? A sendup of the genre? A straight-faced mystery featuring cats instead of people? COME ON KID MAKE IT SNAPPY. THE ASSISTANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN THIS STORY AND IT IS YOUR JOB TO INTEREST THE ASSISTANT.

6. "Mystery writing contest"? So what? Did you win an Edgar Award? No? Then no! one! cares! Leave the contests out UNLESS THEY ARE IMPORTANT. Nobel? Yes. MacArthur? Yes. "Mystery writing contest"? NO.

7. Do we do our research before we query, Author-friends! YES WE DO. YES! WE! DO! We have this thing called THE INTERNET! GOOGLE, MOTHERFUCKER!

8. Do we proofread our queries, Author-friends? YES! WE! DO!

9. Do we attach passive-aggressive postscripts to our query letters, stating the obvious? NO! WE! DO! NOT!

There you have it, Author-friends! Our first foray into the world of querying, for your delectation and edification! Don't say we never did anything for you!

I have a confession to make: I watch 24. I know it’s over, so you might think to say watch in the present is inaccurate, but my girlfriend and I don’t have TV, we have computers, so everything is observed on DVD. Therefore, I am still in the lull between seasons.

Here’s my official story: I watch 24 to keep up with what middle America is thinking about foreign affairs and homeland security. I want to know who my great aunt Ruth thinks she’s afraid of and why. If you’ve never seen the show, here’s the basic premise… some “other” people (usually Middle Eastern, but also likely to be Russian or some other vague Eastern European) are plotting to bring the U.S. down, Jack Bauer doesn’t want to be involved, but he gets involved, gets implicated, man, even the fucking President wants to take him out, even his friends question him (except for Chloe), then Jack Bauer saves the day. In the course of saving the day, Jack must torture (yes, torture, yes, graphically, on prime time TV, many, many people, sometimes men, sometimes women (the titillation!), Jack Bauer, Feminist believes in equal opportunity… There was this time he even electrocuted his girlfriend’s ex-husband with a table lamp! Now you’ve got ideas!). Also Jack gets tortured. If you’ve gone more than three episodes without witnessing torture, you’re probably not watching 24. Dear Fox Network Marketing Department, you can have that tag line.

I don’t condone violence. I don’t like violence. I once dropped a PC off the roof of my house because it ate a terrible 60-page story I was working on, and that violence felt good. But there’s never an excuse for physically hurting another human being or animal. Rejection hurts enough! Tell them they’re ugly! Or that you don’t like their shoes! Sentences! Hair color! Mode of transportation! I will watch a show or movie with violence though. I won’t like it, but I will appreciate the violence as an element specific to the story, specific to getting The Point across. Whatever the point is. In the case of 24, I need to know that Americans are afraid of a lot of people and that they wouldn’t mind beating the crap out of them for the sake of Patriotism, er, protecting the Homeland. There is violence on TV and in movies because violence happens and also because we are at war, but the real point is that we are afraid. And we would like to see the bad guys get hurt; it makes us feel better.

When I say us, I mean you, middle America. Me, I’d rather watch sex on TV.

Which brings me to the real reason I watch 24: to watch Jack Bauer move. I dig chicks, but I love watching the way that man slinks around a dangerous scene. I can’t even describe it; you just need to see it for yourself. He’s a freakin’ ballerina with a gun and a nasty attitude. I am a dyke who watches 24 because Jack Bauer is one sexy mother—.

Am I represented anywhere on this show? No. Oh, well… there was the lesbian in the first season. She was a hitwoman/bad guy and was killed off so fast most people don’t even remember her. Also, the gay kid who was the black sheep son of somebody important and who gave the terrorists some information while having orgy sex with gay terrorists. I actually don’t remember the details, but this is my emotional memory of the fag content of this show.

Why am I talking about TV anyway? I watch almost anything. I read almost anything. TV’s easier to talk about though. There’s the passivity of letting the images wash over you. Shit comes into your living room without you even asking for it. Books you have to go out and get. There’s implication involved. There’s choice. You asked for it.

I love Henry Miller. William Faulkner. Hemingway. Misogynists are excellent reads. Homophobes. Sure. Them too. I mention these dudes because to mention current names (men and women) would probably get me into trouble, but you probably know some of them. And, like me, you’ve probably also read a good many of them. Their misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, classism, geocentric worldview, etc, etc, is probably today masked to gain readership, or crammed into their characters, but you know who they are.

Turn a good sentence and I’ll read you. I don’t need to be friends with the author of every book I read. I might not purchase some asshole’s book, but I’ll borrow it from someone who did, or get it from the library—the library loves misogynists.

What is interesting to me in watching or reading things so far outside of my experience is to find the universals. That’s what literature is about, no? Making connections? Finding the common thread in uncommon cohorts? Tony Soprano had a breakthrough in therapy?! I’ve had breakthroughs, too! We’re all human (those of us humans), what’s interesting to me is how my rage and desperation for knowledge can have me googling for hours, I might even go to the library. Jack Bauer has the same need and it leads him to stripping the cord of the nearest lamp and pressing it into sweaty flesh. We are one.

What wasn’t asked, but seems the more interesting question, is how to handle these characters in our own work. Or do we? Do we create a strange amalgamated caricature of violence and hatred so the reader knows THIS ISN’T ME! Or do we give the character the same care and respect and depth that we give our god-fearing, mother-loving, friendly-to-animals-and-babies characters? For the one or two or you reading this who know anything about my work, you’ll know that my stories and poems are filled with cruel people. They scare me, I’ve known so many of them, and that’s why they populate my work. Keep your eye on the ball.

Maybe people think they are me. My first book was just released last month. People I know are reading it. People I’ve slept with. People I went to high school with. People who live on my block. There’s a tendency in poetry especially for readers to want the “I” in every poem to be the man or the woman with the pen, but for me that’s just not the case. To mix it up, dear readers, the I is sometimes me, sometimes isn’t, and is more commonly some monstrous combination. I value a kind writer who can write about assholes. I value assholes who can write about themselves and other assholes, and write about them well. I want to know about all of them. About the racism and homophobia of the girl or guy next door. The expected and the unexpected. The homophobia of the homosexual. The misogyny of the woman. The self-flagellating straight white male, wherever he is. The fear of self-implication will only lead a writer away from the truth. And the truth is what matters, whatever form it takes.

How are you implicated in the ills of the world? You—every one of you—are an asshole, too.

What I won’t tolerate is something that doesn’t serve the art’s aim, but I’ve babbled too much to talk about the over-the-top violence in some recent books and films (i.e. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), where I think something has gone too far into pointless spectacle.

All I want is honesty. Honest characters in all their dirty. Wise as readers are, a false character or false moment will come off false. And this (I think) is the biggest offense of all.

Elizabeth J. Colen is the author of just released prose poetry collection Money for Sunsets (Steel Toe Books), and forthcoming flash fiction chapbook Dear Mother Monster, Dear Daughter Mistake (Rose Metal Press). Learn more at her blog.

In high school, despite my aptitude for English and my love of reading, it did not even occur to me that I should major in English in college. My experience with 'academic' reading consisted mainly of books like Lord of the Flies, The Great Gatsby, The Old Man and the Sea, and 1984. Even the ones that I liked, like 1984, were books written by men, about men, and for men. I thought (not entirely incorrectly) that majoring in English would just be me reading a bunch of books that objectified women, erased women, or just plain didn't find women interesting. From my limited perspective, the whole history of English literature was a string of white dudes with no interest in writing about women, and a few female exceptions, who wrote romances for the most part, like Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights. And, well, fuck that. I'd rather study something else.

Luckily for me, I finally had an English teacher that introduced me to different kinds of books. The one that really changed my life was Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible. Not only was this book critical of racism and missionary work, but it made female narratives and voices its focus. The story is told alternately by each of a missionary family's five daughters and wife, and the father (the preacher and misogynistic, racist head of the household) has a voice only indirectly. Reading this in high school was a revelation: Kingsolver was directly addressing the fact that men have an excess of opportunities to speak and be heard. The father is a preacher, and when he speaks, people listen. In the Congo, they listen because he is a white man. In the U.S., they listen because he is a white man. In his family, they listen because of his abuse, which he can get away with because no one would listen to them anyway, as they're only women or girls. Even though the story is told by only women, the reader still hears the preacher's direct voice numerous times. His voice seeps into and co-opts their narratives. As a woman who felt unheard, who existed in a verbally abusive home, forced into silence about it because who would listen to me, and who wanted desperately to feel like what I had to say and had experienced were important, The Poisonwood Bible saved my life. I thought, this can be what literature is about. And so my freshman year of college, I declared myself an English major.

I still had to wade through a sea of white manfiction, and as a graduate student, I no longer have the option of eschewing canon. And while I originally intended to focus on contemporary American literature, I instead find myself hard-core Victorianist, specializing in Victorian science fiction. Most of the time, I am at a loss as to how this happened. I mean, Victorian lit? Science fiction? And of all the unlikely books, Margaret Oliphant's Miss Marjoribanks was my introduction to Victorian literature. If you haven't read it (and most people haven't), it's about a lady who makes it her life's mission to improve the social life of her middle-upper-class neighborhood. While this book isn't particularly radical or overt in its social criticism, it also makes absolutely clear the social limits placed on Lucilla Marjoribanks, because of her gender. She's so privileged, with all the money she could want, and no mother to usurp her place of queen bee in her father's home, and she still has to limit herself to her Thursday evenings and the exact right pattern for the walls of her drawing room. Lucilla is fierce and clever and a bit of a social genius; in another time and place, she could have been a diplomat or a Secretary of State, changing the world in much bigger ways. And Oliphant pokes fun at her, but gently, because she seems to know this, too, and to regret for Lucilla her lack of opportunities.

There's something that draws me to the Victorian era again and again, perhaps because I think the Victorians still live with us. How we picture ourselves in the world seems to echo from this tiny country that conquered the world, gave us soap, racist and sexist science, the imaginary East/West binary, as well as technology that changed the landscape of industry, political and economic policies that continue to disadvantage the third world, and an astounding amount of self-righteousness. They're so familiar and so utterly alien at the same time, and I find myself both comfortable and uncomfortable in their world. And, for some reason, I love this. But I never, ever apologize for them. Victorian authors are usually racist, misogynistic, and heterosexist, and I can never quite forgive them for that. They disappoint me constantly, and this, I think, keeps me from relating to them too much (although I have had multiple conversations about how much I would like to meet H. G. Wells and go ride bicycles with him).

As for the science fiction, I love science fiction. OH MAN do I love it. It is ripe with subversive possibilities and radical tendencies, even though those are ignored by a great majority of science fiction writers. The same was true in the Victorian era; while most science fiction was obnoxiously retrograde, it also attracted the radical social critics of the time. And, more significantly, it signaled how the culture was dealing with the increasing importance of science and technological feats in Western culture. That science fiction is becoming more and more mainstream today is a signal that we are again dealing with the scientific and technological nature of our environment. And how we see science and technology stems a lot from Victorian sci fi, which gave us our obsession with time travel, the Daleks (á la the Martians of Wells's The War of the Worlds ), and dreams of flying into the stars. Victorian sci fi was the first Western genre to systematically explore the conflicts between the body and science/technology, and our own ambivalence towards technological and scientific progress.

There's much to admire and to abhor in Victorian science fiction, but most important to me is that there is always something to learn from it. Even when my own experiences or body are misrepresented or erased in this genre, I can tie that back to contemporary or Victorian erasures of women in the culture of science and in science fiction. I can make the failures of literature productive, which is really what being a cultural critic is all about.

Courtney is a feminist, geek, gamer, atheist, and sci fi aca-fan. She's an English graduate student, specializing in Victorian science fiction. She blogs at From Austin to A&M.

How does a black girl from the west coast read the stories of John Cheever, the closeted bisexual drunk of Ossining? How can I relate to a world overrun with ferries, bridge playing, boarding schools, summer beach houses, silver spoons, Ivy Leagues, sleep-away camp, country clubs and highball glasses? John Cheever was a perfect channeler of upper middle class, white suburban ennui, a world I’ve never belonged to and shan’t. Then why do I LOVE reading Cheever stories when the one thing they are decidedly NOT about is being black?

As far as I can tell, the black experience in America has ceased to be relevant in fiction. Gone are the days when the Book of the Month Club features a novel about an earnest young black man who “rapes” and asphyxiates an “innocent” white girl before shoving her into her a furnace. Those ghastly imponderables that cut to the heart of the African American psyche with razor sharp precision have lost their edge. What has endured is the subject of slavery, the Sisyphean task of obtaining Freedom, overcoming severe degradation, the loss of one’s humanity. I get it and I wouldn’t dare trivialize it BUT I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the subject stale.

I was disappointed when I read ZZ Packer’s story for the New Yorker’s "20 Under 40" issue. She’s the only African American on the list and she writes about runaway slaves. Huh, I didn’t see THAT one coming. In spite of my initial disappointment, I enjoyed Packer’s story because she is an incredibly skilled WRITER and a damn good storyteller, and that is what I love about reading good fiction. You can write about anthropomorphized farm animals, or murdered prostitutes, or slavery, or vampires, or an underground network of homeless people staging a revolt against the rich; you can write about anything as long as it’s a good story—intelligent, well-written and well executed. That is how I judge fiction, but I wasn’t always this way.

Reading the great American novels in school was torturous. My white classmates relished in Salinger, Fitzgerald, Twain, Hemingway, and looked at me sideways when it came time to address themes of slavery and racism. Apparently, these were the only subjects I was qualified to discuss. Of course they were right to assume my interpretation would be informed by a totally different set of historical references, but this assumption also made me feel terribly awkward, alone, and shy. Hmmm, how do you explain to a bunch of white students and a white teacher that you think Atticus Finch is a racist? Over time I grew bitter. I mentally checked out of school and started to develop my own curriculum. It would have pleased my father a great deal for me to read Bloods: Black Veterans of the Vietnam War, a book he foisted on me since I was in trainers, but I didn’t want to read books about being black or the black experience or any one thing. I just wanted to read the books that IIIIIII wanted to read and how IIIIIII wanted to read them. After all, reading should be an intimate, personal experience (much like writing) and I wanted to enjoy that.

That time in my life shaped who I am as a reader and helped me overcome some of the resentment I had towards great American fiction in school. I learned to appreciate reading on a fundamentally selfish level. I started to separate the author from the text, to distinguish form from content—I became a critical reader, not a black girl who likes to read about black things by black people OR a black girl who likes to read about white things by white people (or whatever variation suits your fancy). I just became a Reader.

I’m still rubbed the wrong way when we talk about “great American fiction,” but this has more to do with the institutions that make arbitrary decisions about literary “greatness” than it does books and reading. As it happens, primarily white men run these institutions. As it happens, these are the institutions that select one African American to represent, ostensibly, the best of what today’s young African American fiction writers have to offer, and then proceed to publish said individual’s highly unoriginal story about runaway slaves. That same shall-not-be-named institution, however, is responsible for publishing one of my favorite short story writers of all time: John Cheever. How do I reconcile? Once again, it boils down to me the reader, the book and a good fucking story. Nothing else.

Cheever’s stories are flipping hilarious in that fly on the wall, I’m really glad that’s not me kind of way. Behind the doors of those Tudor-style homes with manicured lawns in the suburbs, crazy Shit. Goes. Down. Of course the conflict in “The Enormous Radio,” “The Swimmer,” and “Farewell My Brother,” has little to do with me as a black woman, but again, I don’t read fiction so I can analyze it through the prism of my blackness. I read fiction to escape. People who can’t enjoy a good story because it’s not about them are insufferable drips. Similarly, writers incapable of or unwilling to explore unknown territory possess little imagination. John Cheever had a great imagination. The world he wrote about so vividly was a world he didn’t really belong to—his family wasn’t very wealthy, he was expelled from school, bisexual, and a drunk. “A good narrative is a rudimentary structure, rather like a kidney,” he once said. “Fiction is meant to illuminate, to explode, to refresh. I don’t think there’s any consecutive moral philosophy in fiction beyond excellence.” It was Cheever’s commitment to excellence that propelled his career, not that he wrote about privileged snobs playing backgammon in the parlor.

I am an African American woman and I think about what that means every day of my life, but I don’t let it dictate how I read fiction because it would undermine my love of narrative, imagination, storytelling, language. That being said, African American authors—minority authors!—are not well represented in fiction, and those who are tend to follow the script lest they go unnoticed by the formidable Institutions Of Literary Greatness Recognition (cough, major book publishers and magazines still publishing fiction). My desire for more black authors does not coincide with a deep-seated need to read about my experience. I want more black authors because without them we are letting a tremendous amount of creative potential, imagination, excellent storytelling go untapped. So, yes, Hello, I am black. I love fiction. (Or, Hello, I’m a black author. I like to write fiction.) These two things aren’t necessarily related and we shouldn’t expect them to be. We should expect lovers of fiction to thirst for stories of all kinds from all walks of life and from all people, and that those stories carry in them a universal appeal.

Lauretta Charlton knows what it's like to be the only black person in book publishing. She lives in NYC, enjoys fiction, snacks and tigers.

.

I am a man of singular obsessions. When I find an author I like, I begin collecting everything they’ve ever written. I try to read in chronological order, but will sometimes hold books back for an emergency situation, for the long patches when everything I pick up frustrates and annoys me. These patches can be quite protracted - chief on my list of things I dislike reading are books with dialogue problems. I am a very auditory reader and the shock of “hearing” a character say something that feels false, the Metatron voice of the author, or a string of misconceptions about a particular dialect will ruin it for me every time. I find several authorial “voices” grating - participating in an author’s self-congratulatory appraisal of his or her own writing feels like being asked to hold someone’s pants during an orgy. Me, standing in the foyer, growing ever more impatient, shouting out “Do I need to be here for this?” This is why I shelved The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood, why I still haven’t read Paradise by Toni Morrison. I open the first page, start to get pulled in, and think “What if society collapses and you don’t have anything to READ*, Garland?”

So when I’ve read a few books by an author, and they do something shitty, I feel like they’ve been wasting my time. That is why I want to talk about Nicholson Baker. I love Nicholson Baker. I love Nicholson Baker more than I love certain members of my own family. Baker wrote two of my favorite books, Room Temperature and The Mezzanine. In them he writes about the tiniest facets of quotidian experience, with a breathtaking commitment to precision in language. I haven’t liked everything he’s ever written: The Everlasting Story of Nory was a giant drag, especially for a children’s book, and I can understand why his wife doesn’t like The Fermata, a book about a man who stops time and uses this talent to undress women. Fond Memories! Of Vagina!

The attentive reader will notice all the writers I’ve mentioned so far are straight. Most of the words I read are written by straight authors. There are things that bother me about books written by straight people, especially straight men, but my other options are quite limited. Whenever I have a discussion about the dearth of queer writers currently in print, someone is always quick to point out the works of James Baldwin, or the NPR triplets - David Rakoff, Augusten Burrough, and David Sedaris, or two of more famous lesbian writers, Rita Mae Brown, Jeanette Winterson, or Susan Sontag. And while I enjoy the work of some of these people to varying degrees, I can name hundreds of heterosexual white authors in the canon. If I want to read about the richness and depth of the queer experience, my other options are the great old gay authors, who often wrote exclusively about heterosexuals, the works of writers like Armistead Maupin, men writing about the experience of being a gay man living in a Metropolitan Queer Community, and cranky old Gore Vidal.

So I read about the lives of straight people, then comment on them. Because my criticisms stem from a queer reading of the text, and queering the text is subversive, I open myself up to all of the standard criticisms of queer scholarship. We’re either reading things into the text that aren’t there, we’re getting our swish all over the canon, or we’re trying to make a case that your favorite author, the one you love so much, might have been queer or might have written queer themes into their work. Or, as some of them put it, “Sam and Frodo weren’t gay! They were just good friends! Why are you doing this to me LORD OF THE RINGS IS MY VERY LIFE!”

Part of this is a reclamation of queer history. Queer histories are notoriously subject to erasure; someone who didn’t know any better might think that we are a relatively new phenomenon, created in a lab in 1950s San Francisco to fight the Communists. BUT THEN SOMETHING WENT TERRIBLY AWRY. This ignores the fact that queers have been at every battle, every rally, every uprising, every cultural shift since the beginning of recorded history, going back to our primate ancestors. Primates like the bonobos, who pull out ALL the stops when it comes to same-sex mating behaviors. Queers aren’t invisible because the light of history shines around us, we are invisible because it was decided that our existence could only be referred to in code. We’ve been indulging in “The Unspeakable Vice of the Greeks” and “The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name” like some ancient Lovecraftian terror too hideous to countenance.

But another part of this is us playing by the rules of deconstruction. If the author is truly dead, if the text is a matrix of probability - something akin to the smear of an electron cloud - opening itself to infinite interpretations outside of the historical readings and the academic readings, and those terrible readings that treat the author as essentially a brain in a jar (these critics often insisting that the alternative readings tend to ignore the genius of the text, which usually turns into a big fat whine about “demystifying the author’s work” BLAH BLAH BLAH GET A REAL JOB). But when marginalized people try to engage in this process, putting themselves through universities, playing by the rules of scholarship, we are trivialized. All of the sudden the author isn’t dead and he has sent the VOICE OF REASON to your doorstep to tell you why you should help him try to erase yourself from literature. But when you take into account the fact that the queer experience has always been a part of the human experience, that queer history has undergone systematic erasure, and that all through this, people have been writing, some of those books and letters and works are about us. Some of those works are about us, but may not be written about us.

Edward Albee has consistently denied that Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a play about four gay men, even though he himself is gay. But even if Albee never sat down to write a play about the queer experience, he undoubtedly drew on relationships of his own, and that makes his play about the queer experience. Those who don’t understand the point I’m trying to make will try to shoehorn this interpretation into a historical reading of the text, which starts us swirling down the “Shakespeare and his Fair Youth” drain, where we are always having to push over some imaginary threshold of queer thematic imagery - that an author must have written a certain number of lines about the queer experience, or there must be this much evidence before we’re even allowed in to explain ourselves. The amount of push back is dependent on the sanctity of the author and the depth of the scholarship already done in the area - claiming that Oscar Wilde might have queer themes is a fairly safe conversation to have, lots of nodding heads all around, but mention queer themes in Hemingway and people begin BLEEDING FROM THE EYES.

So the range of freedom queer scholars and readers have in interpretation is limited. We are largely ignored when we discuss “safe” queer authors like Wilde or Virginia Woolf or Proust. Once we leave our wheelhouse, leave our slice of the canon and start looking for fellow travelers, we are accused of straining the bounds of credulity to “make a political point.”

So, back to Baker. One of the last books I read by Baker was U and I, about his experience as a reader of John Updike. I don’t care for Updike, I think the fact that he went from Harvard directly into writing imbued him with a rich straight white male myopia which, as it turns out, is always what people want to read! Allegedly! Baker’s profile of Updike is really a profile of Baker, about the “Anxiety of Influence” Baker felt while reading Updike’s work, with the prerequisite fanboy squealing about Updike’s intelligence and poise. At one point he states that Updike was "the first to take the penile sensorium under the wing of elaborate metaphorical prose" and then praises Updike for comparing the vagina to the inside of a ballet slipper. EWWW. Maybe not everyone wants to hear a woman’s ladyparts compared to footwear, Nicholson.

During one of the many imagined conversations Baker contrives between Updike and himself, Baker mentions how beautiful Alan Hollinghurst’s The Swimming Pool Library is, with the coda that he only really enjoyed Hollinghurst after he got over the revulsion of reading about two men having sex. I have read two of Hollinghurst’s novels, The Swimming Pool Library and The Line of Beauty, and he is not perfect. His treatment of People of Color is typical British Colonial Bullshit, even as he is critiquing polite British society’s treatment of gay men, and he is ponderous in places. But he writes perfect sentences. And reading this man, who I deeply respected, prefacing a review of his with the typical “Ewww Gay Sex” straight male reaction felt like a betrayal. Not just because I had read everything I could of his, and really tried to finish Human Smoke, but because of how quickly my reading list would shrink if I applied the same criteria. Can we talk about reading fawning, meticulous descriptions of sex you don’t personally enjoy? Can we discuss the fact that if I elected to only read books about people making the beast with ONE back, I could throw out two of my bookshelves? Almost all of the sex scenes I read are straight sex scenes. I honestly don’t know how straight people function, because from what I’ve read, the act of a penis entering a vagina can crack the world in two. It is apparently the highest bond two human beings can aspire to. Walking into a bookstore or video store while queer is like watching a really well-organized Straight Pride Parade go by. “Read the book about the girl who gets the boy! Watch the movie about the boy who gets the girl! Ohhh, in this one the boy’s wearing a hat and the girl’s a Golem! Such variety!” Heed my words, young poet: if you find a new way to sell Penis + Vagina to straight people, they’ll put your name in lights.†

But at the heart of it, Baker’s revulsion cut to an internal conflict I had been trying to ignore for years: I was avoiding writing about queer characters. And every time the text steered into queer territory, I would remind myself that it would make my work harder to sell. That I wanted a chance to tell larger stories about the human condition, and that if my work was labelled “queer fiction” I’d go largely unread. Slowly the other, more rabidly defiant part of my personality began to encroach upon my writing. Thus, most of my short stories from that era are about heterosexuals in identity crises.

I know, I know - if queer writers don’t write queer fiction, who else will? But it felt shitty that my work would always be less than a straight man’s, that I would be considered a “lesser” writer, that straight men could one day write reviews of my books that amounted to 2000+ words of “I didn’t like the utter lack of Penis + Vagina, but I can’t say that outright, so I’ll say his work didn’t ‘ring true.’” Which is one of those hexes you can put on marginalized writers when your limited experience strangles your interpretation of their work.

I still don’t know how I feel about this problem. I’ve learned not to steer away from queer themes or they snake into the foundation of anything I’m writing and start coming up the drains. I’ve learned that short of changing my name to Butch Samson and conforming to the straight masculine ethic, I will continue to fight for acclaim in an ever-shrinking series of literary circles. Just like female authors, trans authors, and authors of color. And my recognition that this is not uniquely a queer problem makes it seem cowardly to do anything else. I may not be published. I may not ever win any prizes. But at least I’ll have my dignity.

Now, remind me how much a word you get paid to write with dignity? I hope it’s a lot.

*Incidentally, the one thing that has always bothered me about the iconic “Time Enough at Last” episode of Twilight Zone is that they set the main character up to be this massive bookworm, and he spends the first few minutes nattering on about David Copperfield. Wouldn’t he have gotten to that one by then? I mean HONESTLY.

†I recently read Baker’s review of Hollinghurst’s The Folding Star in The Size of Thoughts. Baker wrote the review two years after U and I and it is some of the best criticism of a gay novel by a straight man I’ve ever read.

Garland Grey is a writer from Texas and contributor to Tiger Beatdown, who maintains garlandgrey.com.

to inform you that Science Fiction Week was SO AWESOME it's being reposted at Tor.com!!!!! A hearty thank-you to the fabulous folks over at Tor and to the supremely excellent ladies who were kind enough to do interviews with us.]

I am a deaf woman. I was born deaf and I have lived my entire life as a deaf person in a world built by and for hearing people. Like most people of any type of disability, I have experienced abuse, discrimination, isolation, lack of information, and rejection. For as long as I have been able to read, I have used books to escape from all of it. At the age of 10, I discovered The Hobbit and I have been a devoted fan of the fantasy genre ever since.

Fantasy meets my needs for escapism in ways that no other genre can match; with gods and beasts, magic and absolute evil, and the titanic struggles of characters to hold on to themselves. Growing up, I often found a deeper connection to characters in the books I read than with actual people around me.

None of the characters I connected with were disabled.

Today, I make a practice of avoiding books that feature disabled characters. Often, how those characters think, feel, and react to the world around them rings false. They feel flat, hollow, and paper-thin, their stories too predictable, too boring. I'd rather enjoy stories about able-bodied heroes that feel real to life instead of reading underwhelming reiterations of a formula that is mistaken. This formula is deeply rooted in our culture’s narrative about what disability means, as defined by those who are not disabled. It is a privileged and myopic narrative, created by an able-bodied majority, and falls far short of reflecting the actual experience of disabled people.

The most crucial error the Able-bodied Narrative makes is the proposition that the disability is the most important and most interesting thing in that person’s life. IT IS NOT. That is not to say that our disabilities are inconsequential; our bodies have quite a big impact on how we live our lives. I am saying that OUR DISABILITIES DO NOT DEFINE US. Disability is but a part of our experience, not the totality.

Thinking of disabled people as being their disability ignores all the other things that make us fully realized and active human beings; our loves, desires, hobbies, thoughts, fears, hatreds, ambitions, and failures. It ignores the conflicts that have actual meaning to our lives and relationships—conflicts that contain within them the seeds of stories so much richer and deeper than the Able-bodied Narrative could ever allow for.

Instead, The Able-bodied Narrative defines people by their disabilities and results in stereotyped characters in predictable plots: the struggle to overcome our obvious suffering, the search for a cure or at least normalcy, and the inspiring greatness of the "Supercrip."

In the first sort of plot, the writer envisions a disability to be the worst thing to ever happen to that character, and must therefore be the most interesting thing about that character. This is a failure of imagination. What about poverty and unemployment? Abuse? Disempowerment and lack of agency? All of these are arguably more devastating than not being able to hear, or see, or walk a mile. Those listening to and writing the narrative are so focused on the “obvious” tragedy they miss the fact that most disabled people do not experience their disability as suffering. Our bodies are not abusing us. The only abuse we receive is from those who treat us as lesser beings. From those who see only a disability rather than a person with a disability.

The second plot follows from the first and concerns the search for a cure, and if that is unattainable, then the struggle to be “as normal as can be.” To the able-bodied perspective, this is only natural, right? For after all, how can anyone not want to be a part of society? And since it is obviously so impossible to be a part of society while disabled, then of course they’d want a cure! Well, that’s not really true, and it is actually kind of demeaning.

“Fix the defect” is a form of victim blaming. Except in this case, the victim is only a victim because others have said that he or she is. It is a label that is ascribed to us but which we never claim for ourselves. We do not experience ourselves as being victimized by our bodies. Our bodies do not beat us. Our bodies do not deny us employment. Our bodies don’t reject us when we seek opportunities to achieve our goals. We become victims only when others victimize us. No amount of fixing can erase that.

What we want is compassion, understanding, and respect. We want access to social structures such as entertainment, work, businesses, and transportation. We want the freedom to choose to use assistive devices or not as we will, without a moral imperative imposed upon us. Disabled people have more important and more interesting things to concern them than in fixing problems that really aren’t.

The third plot is also the most pervasive and most cherished in the Able-bodied Narrative, and the one that most bothers me. It has been dubbed the “Supercrip.” Supercrip is the “inspiring” and “amazing” disabled person who has “suffered” and “overcome” the “terrible limitations” of disability. Bitch magazine explains it thus:

Supercrip provides a way for non-disabled folks to be “inspired” by persons with disabilities without actually questioning—or making changes to—how persons with disabilities are treated in society.... Supercrip cannot just be human; she or he must be superhuman and surpass not only her/his disability, but the realms of “normal” human achievement. Supercrip allows some non-disabled folks to feel better about themselves; this is quite evident when it comes to statements like, “What an inspiration!”

In fiction, particularly fantasy, the Supercrip trope is interpreted in its literal sense—the disabled superhero, a la Daredevil, a blind man with super-sensitive hearing and touch that completely negated the effects his blindness and therefore of his experience as a blind man. It is a form of fixing and normalizes disability by rendering actual conflicts and difficulties of being disabled as irrelevant.

Conclusion

A few weeks ago, I shelved a long-time WIP due to intense dissatisfaction with the story I was crafting. I felt very disappointed and frustrated with myself for giving up so easily when it was only halfway done. But I just couldn’t get anywhere with it because I hated it so much. I couldn’t figure out exactly what I hated and what I needed to fix, so I boxed it for a later date.

It took writing this post to make me understand what I was doing wrong. I had created a character with a disability and then constructed a plot with all three forms of the Able-bodied Narrative at play: she suffered from an extreme form of color-blindness that made it impossible for her to perform the magic she was born to, she overcame that blindness by discovering the ability to sense the Power by touch, and thus became the only person in the world able to detect the demon eating away at the heart of existence, she then mastered her power and defeated the demon.

This character became the very essence of what I avoid reading. If I had encountered this character in someone else’s book, I would have dumped it in the trash. I didn’t even realize what I was writing. This narrative is so entrenched in our culture’s language it is invisible. All I knew was that my character felt completely false to me, the story I tried to build felt utterly flat. Which is exactly what the Able-bodied Narrative does to every piece of fiction that contains it—turns what culd have been an interesting character into a cardboard cut-out and devolves an entire story into able-bodied propaganda.

------------------

Further reading

From Feminists with Disabilities, an analysis on how the language of disability as suffering is oppressive

From Locus Magazine, an article about various manifestations of disability plots

Another fantasy reader writing about how disability is handled in fantasy specifically

My name is Rachel M. I am a struggling writer-type person and I have too many WIPs to count. I also occasionally blog at Rachel's Lessons Learned, where I write about things that don't matter to anyone but myself.

AT LONG LAST! it is our promised GUEST-POST WEEK! HUZZAH! And LITERALLY as we type these words, the most ungodly boom of thunder ever sounds across the skies of Brooklyn, and Lola Pants, who has been quietly observing our typing from atop our monumental Pile of Stuff We Put In One Place to Remind Us of Things We Have to Do, has leapt to her feet and skittered madly across our desk, knocked over the rosemary, sent the preliminary sketches for our Top Secret Awesome Rejectionist Project flying, and is now cowering under the couch, from whence she refuses to budge. So how is THAT for an omen! the marginalized speak, and the heavens motherfucking open!! !!! !!!!!

So here is where we make a confession to you, beloved Author-friends! You know what the Rejectionist HATES? Rejecting people. Seriously. Kind of ironic, no? It's like rain on your wedding day, or some shit. A free ride when you've already paid, &c. We got SO MANY completely amazing submissions, and it was like a fistful of knives in our heart trying to narrow them down to five. SO, if you are someone who wrote something for our Topic, and were not arbitrarily (is that a word? possibly that is not a word, our text editor red-underlined it--oh wait, no, we have just had too much sake and spelt it wrong, it's fixed now) selected by some random New York blogger (i.e. us) to have that post put up on her random often tedious and invariably sententious blog, and you want to put that post up on YOUR blog, why don't you link to it here in the comments! on this little guest-post week introduction! and then everyone can read YOUR post, too!

So this week, sit back! relax! enjoy the magical tinterweb stylings of some mighty wondrous people! We hope you think hard! Learn lots! Nod your head! REPRESENT!

Oooooookay, time to put away the sake.

Bisous,

le r.

Happy anniversary, lady voters!

HOT DAMN ARE THOSE GOOD-LOOKING BOOKS OR WHAT. How foxy would you look reading these editions in cocktail attire, hmm? Pretty fucking foxy. Total genius Coralie Bickford-Smith's cover designs for Penguin UK Hardback Classics. Out in November JUST IN TIME TO BUY THIS WHOLE SERIES FOR THE REJECTIONIST AS A HOLIDAY PRESENT AHEM DEAR UK AUTHOR-FRIENDS.

Some days we are so fucking proud to live in this town. Dear New Yorkers: The Rejectionist loves you, you brilliant citizens! Maybe the rest of the country can shut the fuck up now, and let us go about our business building community centers where rational people welcome them. Thanks.

Better Book Titles, via Author-friend Loretta Ross.

Author-friend Triceratophat made this! It's amazing! NOW STOP WRITING BORING-ASS BOOKS ABOUT BORING-ASS WHITE PEOPLE HAVING BORING-ASS VOYAGES OF NAVEL-GAZERY AND PRIVILEGE IN TROPICAL DESTINATIONS FILLED WITH "FRIENDLY" "GENEROUS" "HUMBLE" "ENLIGHTENED" BROWN PEOPLE WHOSE APPARENT SOLE PURPOSE IN LIFE IS TO BRING YOU A MOTHERFUCKING COCKTAIL WITH AN UMBRELLA IN IT WHILE YOU "LET YOURSELF GO" ALL OVER THEIR FUCKING BEACH. JESUS GOD PEOPLE IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK WE DON'T ASK MUCH.

Chérie looks for meaning everywhere. I am a lapsed Catholic, and a childhood spent in catechism being told that a bearded man in the sky was monitoring my thoughts has turned me into an irrationally superstitious adult who has spent the last decade or so trying to shake the feeling that the universe is maybe a little cognizant. The other day I ran into my best friend and her husband on the subway platform one stop away from Coney Island--we had independently undertaken spontaneous trips to the beach, I got off the train early because a virulent shouting match had erupted in my subway car, and my friends did the same because they wanted to take a stroll down the boardwalk before laying out their blankets. It was hard not to think that cosmic orchestration played a part in what turned out to be the single best day of my summer, which I spent eating hot dogs, swimming in the Atlantic, and riding the Wonder Wheel with literally my two favorite people [ in addition to the Rejectionist --ed.] in the world.

Later that week, the Times ran a blog explaining that coincidences like this are actually very common. In simple terms: every day, the sheer number of possible events that COULD occur and be perceived by us as an extraordinary "coincidence" is so enormous that these moments of "holy shit, what are the chances" are bound to happen sooner or later, or perhaps even on a semi-regular basis. Pradeep Mutalik explains this much better than I can, but on a base level it makes a certain amount of sense. If you're in the car wishing you had a plate of shrimp on which to snack and at that moment you pass a forty foot billboard depicting this desired crustacean, or if you have a dream about an ex you haven't spoken to in seven years, and he Facebook-friend-requests you the next day, it seems like pure prophecy. But when you think about all the billboards you'll pass and all the dreams you'll have over the course of your entire life, the odds that at least one will seem eerily prophetic are actually pretty good. Still, whether these wondrous occurrences are mathematical certainties or proof of a greater synchronicity, it's hard not to assign them with a literal or metaphorical meaning.

Which, my fellow Author-Friends, saddles us with the question of how we can best wield the mighty power of the coincidence in our fiction. Unbelievably unlikely things happen all the time, but how you dispatch them as plot points can make the difference between having a reader rapidly turning your pages or throwing your book against a wall in frustration. We all know that it should be our characters driving our stories. If Gatsby had just happened to move into the house across the water from Daisy's, Fitzgerald would have been writing quite a different book. I recently read a novel in which not one but two incredible chance events transpired in the first fifty pages and set the stage for the entire narrative, and immediately I heard my beloved agent's voice in my head whispering "Strains credibility." The very premise of a story can be rooted in a chance encounter--in Stephen King's Misery, the writer Paul Sheldon just happens to be rescued from a car wreck by a seriously demented woman who is obsessed with his books, what are the odds INDEED--but the unlikely set-up sets the stage for a completely character-driven story. King gets the hardest to believe part out of the way first, and whether you "buy it" or not quickly becomes irrelevant when Annie is sharpening her axe in the other room.

Sometimes these fortuitous moments are slipped in towards the end, perhaps when the author is at a loss for how to bring about a satisfying conclusion. Certainly it's easier to sneak shaky plotting past a reader after he or she has become thoroughly invested in your characters and outcome, but oh man can this shit backfire. The denouement of Richard Russo's Bridge of Sighs comes about only because one of the characters gets on a train and happens to sit next to a magazine that is open to a particular page revealing that the lost love of her youth will be at a nearby gallery opening THAT VERY NIGHT. Did Chérie want to put her wee fist through a wall when she read that OH YES SHE DID. Good sir, I realize that composing a six-hundred-page novel is likely exhausting, but please try to not so obviously run out of steam twelve pages before the end. Francesca Lia Block's novels are brimming over with such instances but she's a magical realist, and there's no pretense that it's "just a coincidence": synchronicity is her plot device, not chance. On the other hand, is it still something I can more or less imagine happening in this peculiar and complicated world of ours? Absolutely. And at the end of Arthur Nersesian's masterpiece The Fuck-Up, when the protagonist has hit bottom and runs into his nemesis from the beginning of the story, who will turn out to be his savior, instead of feeling contrived it all just fits. Nersesian is bringing his story full circle, with his protagonist living out one of the most organic instances of "eternal return" I've probably ever read on the page.

To quote the opening of Magnolia, "There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows? And we generally say, 'Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn't believe it.'" It is the humble opinion of this guest blogger that strange things happen all the time, but when we put them into our stories, we should do our best to remember the reader on the receiving end of our efforts, and do everything in our power to make them believe it.

1. Feminist Science Fiction Week! Was that awesome, or what? Did the ladies bring it, or what? In fact, it was SO AWESOME we are going to do ANOTHER ONE. We'll keep you posted!

2. Guest post submissions! We got them! We got more than forty of them! (!!!) So it will take a moment for us to read everything and whatnot. By "moment" we mean "like, a week or two."

3. Super-brilliant blogger and writer Tasha Fierce is spearheading an anthology project called Occupied Bodies, "on women of color’s self-image/body image as shaped by family, friends, media, society, history, lived experiences, etc." She's accepting submissions until October 5, 2010. More here; also go read her blog, because it is excellent.

4. Because you didn't feel like working on your book today anyway: Kanye West's tweets as New Yorker cartoon captions. Yep, it's as amazing as it sounds.

Happy Monday! Carry on! And, for those of you who have not yet seen this (sent to us by about five different people):

[In its debut year, Neesha Meminger's first book, Shine, Coconut Moon, a contemporary young adult novel, made the Top 100 Books for Teens on the New York Public Library's Stuff for the Teen Age list, and the Smithsonian list of Notable Books. Her second novel, a sci-fi YA, is forthcoming. She also has two paranormal romance novels out under a pseudonym, and a third under contract. --ed.]

"Sometimes I am asked what I do in my consulting room to help women return to their wildish natures. I place substantial emphasis on clinical and developmental psychology, and I use the simplest and most accessible ingredient for healing--stories."

-- Clarissa Pinkola Estes, from Women Who Run With the Wolves , Ballantine Books, 1996

Someone once said that we live and die in the stories and mythologies we create. All cultures thrive on folklore, legends, myths, and archetypes. While storytellers in indigenous communities of the past were often elders, passing down the history of their people through an oral tradition, some of the most potent storytellers and myth-makers of our time are the Walt Disneys, the MGMs, the Universal Studios, Warner Brothers, etc. The stories they churn out tend to follow the single story trope, particularly as it relates to anyone who falls outside the margins.

Women have fought to claim a voice in the stories and mythologies that were, initially, created only by men. In fact, it’s arguable that women are still struggling to find an authentically female voice within the confines of these male-authored mythologies; a uniquely female vision which elevates inter-connection over individualism, negotiation over domination, and a value system that puts human life and the life of our planet above profits.

Clarissa Pinkola Estes, in her best-selling book, Women Who Run With the Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype, notes that, “Sometimes various cultural overlays disarray the bones of stories. For instance, in the case of the brothers Grimm (among other fairy-tale collectors of the past few centuries), there is a strong suspicion that the informants (storytellers) of that time sometimes ‘purified’ their stories for the religious brothers’ sakes. Over the course of time, old pagan symbols were overlaid with Christian ones, so that an old healer in a tale became an evil witch, a spirit became an angel, an initiation veil or caul became a handkerchief, or a child named Beautiful (the customary name for a child born during Solstice festival) was renamed Schmerzenreich, Sorrowful. Sexual elements were omitted. Helping creatures and animals were often changed into demons and boogeys.

“This is how many women's teaching tales about sex, love, money, marriage, birthing, death, and transformation were lost. It is how fairy tales and myths that explicate ancient women's mysteries have been covered over too.”

Along the same lines, people of colour, LGBTQ folk, the working class, and other marginalized voices are often squeezed out of the narrative—lightened, white-washed, dismissed (as in “they don’t buy books”, “there is no market”, “these types of books don’t sell”), diluted, homogenized, etc. when it comes to creating the myths, legends, and archetypes of our time. And it absolutely has an impact on the psychology of our young people.

Ibi Zoboi, a Haitian writer of fantasy and sci-fi, recently blogged this: “I [try] to keep back the tears ’cause I get all emotional when I’m hit with the reality that my kinfolk and their stories are not valued, are not deemed marketable or profitable, or readable, or relatable.”

Hiromi Goto, Japanese-Canadian author of the young adult novel Half World, notes that, “To my mind, stories are not 'just entertainment' (although I believe that in order to function they must, on a certain level, entertain successfully). Stories become part of our thinking, our learning, our knowing. […] How much more necessary, then, that children and youth find their diverse subjectivities reflected in the characters that they read, how much more necessary that dreams, myths, the magical depict children of colour, aboriginal children, metis children.”

My children have come home from school asking, “Mommy, didn’t brown people invent *anything*?” I have to tell them that yes, of course we did. We just aren’t likely to read about it in the current curriculum of assigned texts or in newspapers and magazines. And we most definitely won’t see it on television or in the movies, because those stories come from the imaginations of a handful of the heavily privileged who position themselves, their perspectives and ideologies, and their values at the very center of our global reality. In her book, THE GODDESS: Power, Sexuality, and the Feminine Divine, author and psychotherapist Shahrukh Husain states, “In modern goddess worship, the construction of a glorious female past, however historically inaccurate, is seen as a legitimate exercise in fantasy and myth-making for the purpose of self-empowerment – a role that myth and the power of the imagination have played since the dawn of human consciousness.”

So, in essence, it seems to go something like this: mythology shapes psychology which then shapes reality. Stories/mythology/archetypes → psychology → reality. This means that stories have tremendous power. Now, think of the stories around you – told in film, television, books, music videos, fairy tales, religious texts, magazines, commercials, billboards, etc. What are the mythologies being created? What are the *realities* being created?

It’s almost impossible to speak of stories, folklore, mythologies, archetypes and legends without also looking at the concept of heroes and sheroes. We have seen many, many thousands of stories where the hero is male. And here, in North America, we’ve seen a white male hero in almost all of them. In more recent history, we’ve seen the emergence of the “kickass” female shero. All too often, this female follows predefined, tried-and-true tropes in the pursuit of her goal; or, worse, she is an insipid shero – valorized for her neediness and inaction, and awaiting rescue at the hands of a male love interest.

In the introduction of David E. Jones’s Women Warriors: A History , he writes about one of his observations as a teacher of a Japanese martial art, “Year after year I observed in my classes women who seemed in some mysterious way to have been robbed of their natural right to a sense of bodily dignity and strength. Whereas males could relate to my martial demonstrations, gradually assuming the correct posture and understanding force and ‘command presence,’ women often seemed to move through a maze of conflicting factors that the men did not face to achieve the fighting technique I was teaching. In some ways they had to ‘become male’ to perform the technique.” He goes on to say, “I concluded that one of the reasons for these variations, perhaps THE reason, relates to male conditioning for generations to their warrior heritage. To think warrior in the Western tradition is to think male. For example, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines warrior as ‘a man [author’s emphasis] engaged or experienced in warfare…”

“The ideals of a culture,” he writes in the next paragraph, “a people’s deepest sense of what is right and true, are expressed in traditional verbal formulae (morals, proverbs, myths, etc.). Embedded in a society’s institutions, they are represented by historical heroes revered by the culture.”

Contrast this with fairy tales of princesses awaiting rescue, falling in love at first sight with princes who will whisk them away, and you have girls who are taught not to be warriors, and thus protectors, but to sit and wait for a protector or rescuer. Estes notes that, “Stories are medicine... They have such power; they do not require that we do, be, act anything--we need only listen. The remedies for repair or reclamation of any lost psychic drive are contained in stories . . . Stories are embedded with instructions which guide us about the complexities of life.” If myths, stories, and fairy tales offer a guide and instructions for life, the ones currently creating mass, popular media are blinding the public, especially young and malleable minds, to the whole picture.

Stories of the shero who does not spend her days yearning for a male love interest, or the shero who rescues herself (and the world!) by acting in accordance with values which elevate the power of collective action, engaging the spirit, and using the power of negotiation (even if it is in addition to her skill in combat and sword-wielding like her male counterparts) are rare. But not non-existent.

There is room for such female sheroes within the pages of sci-fi/fantasy novels and speculative fiction. Ursula K. Leguin, Marge Piercy, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Octavia Butler are just some of the names that come to mind when I think of sheroes re-creating and re-shaping their worlds. These authors, and others before and since, re-imagined worlds based on feminist, anti-racist, pro-LGBTQ values. They challenged current tropes and systems in their narratives and offered visions for new ones.

Mary Anne Mohanraj, Sri Lankan-born author of Bodies in Motion , has compiled an extensive list on her website of Alternative Sexualities in Fantasy and SF, and the Carl Brandon Society, an organization which supports the work and representation of People of Color in Science-Fiction and Fantasy, has a wiki page set up with a list of SF/F authors of colour.

But there is still more work to be done in sci-fi/fantasy literature. According to Zoboi, “Haiti has a strong oral tradition so you won’t find that sci-fi or fantasy novel capturing just what really happened during that infamous slave revolt. The stories are in the telling and it is always magical—involving everything from the science of trance to the mysticism in shape-shifting. This is the tradition I come from. And because I am a Haitian-American, I write these stories down and call it speculative fiction—and because I am a black woman, I place myself in the center of these magical, otherworldly stories. Haitian mythology is abundant with kick-ass female characters, so I can’t say I’m creating something new. Now if only the gatekeepers (editors, publishers, and the like) would realize that one culture does not have a monopoly on sci-fi and fantasy. The marginalization of other cultures’ stories comes with the decision to publish or not publish certain stories.”

Goto adds: “Our dreams and myths are also informed by our culture of origin. Our symbologies are not always the same, and nor should they be. There are vast experiences to discover and explore. Why is it that most North Americans know so much more about faeries and the Greek gods, than Coyote and Raven? […] There are still so many gaps and holes in social media that mean so much to youth. Such a dearth of diversity in popular culture, films, tv. There's still an enormous amount of anti-racist and diversity work to be done.”

Mohanraj, in her moving Guest of Honor speech at Wiscon (the feminist sci-fi/fantasy conference in Madison, Wisconsin), 2010, said, “In the SF/F community in the past few years, there have been a series of incidents around social justice -- feminist issues, race issues, more. I think more are coming. I expect that along with RaceFail, we're going to see TransFail, AgeismFail, DisabilityFail. And that's scary, but it's also good. We're at a critical moment, a shifting of the social norms, and we are the ones defining what the new norms will be, what is and is not okay in our community.” (Mohanraj also has an excellent essay up called The Red Sari Project about book covers on books written by South Asian women versus covers on books written by their South Asian male counterparts.

Racefail (a term coined to refer to the huge 2009 blow-up and subsequent dialogue/debate within the online sci-fi/fantasy community around race and writing race), and the issue of whitewashing book covers continues to rage on as strong as ever.

However, the good news is that there has been a Racefail. And there is an uproar over whitewashing. People are discussing and debating, mobilizing and strategizing. People, including authors who’ve had their covers white-washed, are using whatever voice they have to push for change, as scary as that might be.

Later in Mohanraj’s speech, she said, “It can be frightening, speaking up against a friend, or someone you perceive as a powerful editor. It's hard, speaking up against your entire community. […] But heroism isn't about not being afraid. It is about being afraid, and doing the work anyway. Fighting for what you know is right.”

I have faith that more and more people are looking behind what is shown. More and more people are less and less fooled by our constant diet of the single story and a culture that, however unintentionally, promotes a kind of blindness to the truth. I see it everywhere, all around me—people want the truth, they want what’s real, they want to live in a world based on values of justice and equality and they want to see that reflected back in their stories and mythologies. This is the information age—people are getting smarter, and less likely to be fooled. Myth-makers and image-creators would do well to take heed, and some are. In the long run, it’s about so much more than just the bottom line.

Arwen Curry is a filmmaker and writer. She is an associate producer of the documentary Regarding Susan Sontag and co-produced and directed the 2006 documentary Stuffed. She coordinated the magazine Maximum Rocknroll from 1998 to 2004 and publishes the zine Ration. She talked to us about her current project, a documentary on Ursula K. LeGuin.

How did you get involved with this project?

I am directing a documentary film about the life and work of the writer Ursula K. Le Guin, who is best known for her sci-fi and fantasy novels. She is also a celebrated mainstream writer, whatever that means. The film is still technically in the research and development phase, but I shoot whenever I can. I’ll be interviewing Margaret Atwood about Ursula in September, when they’ll appear together in conversation for Portland Arts & Lectures.

I first conceived of the movie about seven years ago. I was talking on the phone with my best friend while pacing around the back patio of Maximum Rocknroll, the punk magazine I was editing then. It was deadline time. We were talking about the debt we felt toward certain women writers of Ursula’s generation (she is 80). Grace Paley and Adrienne Rich also came up. I kept thinking about that conversation, and soon it became clear that Ursula’s story was the one calling to me. It was a few years before I contacted her for the first time and began working on the film in earnest.

What's it like to work with Ursula? Was it intimidating approaching her initially? (We would be sort of terrified, honestly.)

Ursula is a private person (though not in the sense of being reclusive: she generous with her fans, and with the Pacific Northwest arts community, other writers, her friends, etc.). I first approached her with a short letter explaining what I wanted to do with the film, and why, and introducing myself in the most straightforward way I could. I sent her a DVD of my first film, Stuffed, and issues of my zine, Ration. A mutual friend, Moe (of the inspiring Extra Tuf) put in a good word for me, which I believe helped a lot.

Yes, I was intimidated, but not terrified. Because it didn’t feel like my ego on the line; I thought making the movie was the right thing to do, and I just had to make my case. We did have some back and forth about it, and a glass of afternoon vermouth, before she agreed to participate.

Working with Ursula has been great fun. She is kind, curious, wise, playful. Obviously she visits dark places in her work, but she seems to emerge unburdened, and that lightness is a pleasure to be near. We’ve done several long interviews so far, one on an overnight road trip, and the footage is gorgeous. The cinematographers I’ve worked with, John Kiffmeyer and Andy Black, have also gotten on really well with Ursula, which is no small deal.

I received a development grant from the California Council for the Humanities, but funding for the film has a long way to go. The climate for grant money is depressingly competitive now, and while I have high hopes for several applications I have out there, I also hope that a lot of support will come from fans who admire Ursula’s work and want to “meet” her on the screen. In August I’ll be starting a crowd-funding campaign with IndieGoGo that allows supporters to pledge small (or large!) contributions to the film. It will make all the difference, I think.

But hey, if anyone wants to donate now, there’s no reason to wait. Contributions are tax-deductible through the San Francisco Film Society.

What drew you to her work? Was there a particular reason you wanted to make a film about her?

Like many fans, I first read Ursula’s work when I was a kid of ten or eleven: the Earthsea trilogy, her “Omelas” story in an anthology, and her novel The Lathe of Heaven, which is still one of my favorites.

Since I was a little girl I’ve loved reading fairy and folk tales, both for their strangeness and for their eerie familiarity. The Greek or Russian myths were like episodes from my own dreams. So I think Ursula’s work moves me most strongly on that subterranean level of fantasy. Even her “harder” sci-fi is somehow aquatic. In her work, world-shifting encounters often happen in dark, cramped spaces between strangers, at least one of whom is badly hurt. Unexpected tenderness restores dignity, and there’s hope.

Ursula performs important experiments. She asks, what if people had no fixed gender? What if it was almost always winter? What if people never spoke to each other at all? What if the purpose of society was not to progress, but to find balance and hold fast?

I had young parents who divorced before I was three. We moved a lot, and things were pretty scrappy on a material level, but usually not boring. My father refused to keep a television in the house. He was an early Dungeons & Dragons tournament player, when it was still an arcane middle-of-the-night game and not yet dominated by Gary Gygax and TSR. He invented his own world, with detailed maps drawn in colored pencil and laminated in clear plastic shelf paper. In this world were cities, and in the cities were thieves’ guilds, wizards’ universities, corrupt bureaucrats, haunted houses, hidden treasures, fearsome monsters. Transactions were bloody or magical, or both. My brother and I never made it far before we found ourselves splayed on the altar of some nasty orcish god. But my father let us explore this story he was writing, and it felt like a privilege and a great adventure.

So I took that kind of inventiveness—the kind that Ursula exercises so powerfully in her books—quite seriously from early on. I understood that writing can be equal to magic. As Ursula says in one of our interviews, “I do magic. I make things that didn’t exist before. I call it Earthsea, and there it is! So I can draw the map.”

Do you think working with Ursula has influenced your own writing, or how you approach your work?

Knowing Ursula has encouraged me to be braver and more truthful in all my work, and to slow down and try to trust the process. Instead of beating herself up when she’s not working on something, Ursula says that she allows the “compost” of her subconscious to grow richer until something nice and green comes up. I’m paraphrasing. Suffice it to say that if you write, you’ll probably enjoy hearing her talk about writing. You should watch the movie.

It’s funny, because for the past two years I’ve also been working as associate producer on a documentary about Susan Sontag, and in the process of making these films about writers you become very involved with them. It’s almost like being haunted. I’ve spent long hours reading Sontag’s private journals at UCLA Special Collections, turning the pages of the hundreds of little notebooks where she scribbled her wild lists of books to read, movies to see, people to talk to. And at the University of Oregon at Eugene, I’ve spent more long hours reading Ursula’s amazing correspondence with Alice Sheldon (a.k.a. James Tiptree Jr.), Philip K. Dick, Stanislaw Lem, etc., etc.

Sontag (1933-2004) and Le Guin were technically contemporaries, but it doesn’t really feel that way. As writers they’re very different, and they reached very different groups of people, which is sort of sad. Sontag left her family and West Coast roots in a cloud of dust to become a dark star of the avant-garde New York literary scene in the mid 60s. She cared about seriousness. Ursula is a self-proclaimed western writer who raised three kids while becoming a bright star of science fiction’s New Wave in the late 60s. She cares about wholeness.

The things Le Guin and Sontag have in common are probably more illuminating to think about, but I’ve said enough about it already. It’s just that sometimes it’s like they’re perched on each shoulder, dark and bright, whispering to me, as I'm bending my neck back and forth, listening.

When is the movie coming out and where can we go see it?

I’m not sure there’s much use worrying about where yet; the distribution landscape is changing so rapidly that DVDs may not be in the picture at all by the time the film comes out (by 2012, fingers crossed). I am aiming to broadcast the film on one of the major public television documentary strands, as well as screening it at festivals around the country. Plus a limited small theater run. As I suggested, the film may be available online, too, but we’ll have to wait and see!

Since I’ve been working full-time in documentary film, I haven’t been publishing much, and I miss it. I’m hoping it’s possible to do that and still make movies. I’m hoping. I’ll let you know: next week I’m starting a new weekly column for mrr.com. You can follow my progress on the Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin film and other projects at arwencurry.com

to be all like OH YES UNIVERSE OH YES THAT'S RIGHT. "The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."]

Nnedi Okorafor is the author of the children's and YA books Zahrah the Windseeker, The Shadow Speaker (a Tiptree Honor book), Long Juju Man, and Sunny. Her newest book is the mind-blowing novel for adults, Who Fears Death, set in post-apocalyptic Saharan Africa. She has received the Hurston/Wright literary award, the Wole Soyinka Prize for Literature in Africa, the Parallax Award, and the Andre Norton Award, among other honors. Her short stories have been anthologized in Dark Matter II, Strange Horizons, and Writers of the Future.

What drew you to writing speculative fiction?

I see the world as a magical place. Therefore, it was only natural that magic wafted from my fiction like smoke. It wasn’t something I purposely did. I would try to write “realistic” fiction and someone would fly or there would be a black hole full of demons or a girl who attracted frogs.

Speculative fiction has long been a place for writers outside the dominant culture (like Samuel Delany, Octavia Butler, Ursula LeGuin, and James Tiptree, just to name a tiny handful) to explore possibilities of resistance and envision alternatives to that dominant culture. How do you see your work fitting into that tradition? Did you read those writers growing up, or were you exposed mostly to more "white guy, captain of the universe" kinds of science fiction stories?

I think I fit right in with these “outsiders” (i.e. Delany, Butler, LeGuin, Tiptree, etc). I’m exploring many of the same themes and issues. Nevertheless, I didn’t grow up reading any of these authors. I didn’t know of them. I grew up reading Stephen King, Peter Straub, Clive Barker, Robert McCammon, Isaac Asimov’s nonfiction books, Roald Dahl. So I guess you can say I was indeed weaned on white guy fantasy and horror novels (not so much sf). I still read these authors, but I’ve since added plenty of others to my repertoire.

Some books you've read lately and loved?

Under the Dome by Stephen King; Half World by Hiromi Goto; Dreams in a Time of War: A Childhood Memoir by Ngugi Wa Thiong’o; and Unknown Soldier Volumes 1 and 2 by Josh Dysart.

Do you think genre fiction, and spec fiction in particular, is more open to writers of color than literary fiction? Can you talk about why or why not?

I think speculative fiction has fewer unspoken prerequisites than literary fiction for writers of color. I believe this is because 1. Writers of color have a weaker foundation in speculative fiction. We are gradually creating a foundation. Thus, for now, there are few expectations. I think that will change. 2. The nature of speculative fiction is to speculate, to imagine, to think outside the box. Speculative fiction is by definition better at doing this than literary fiction... not to say that the category of speculative fiction is perfect; it is still quite narrow-minded, but it’s far more open to “others” than literary fiction. Literary fiction seems to have its own idea of what belongs within it and what is expected of writers of color, and those ideas are more rigid and specific.

What do you hope readers take away from your work?

That Africa will be part of the future. That women can be great complex warriors. That people can fly. That sometimes leaves are not leaves. That tradition is alive and some parts of it are dead. That the end is sometimes a beginning. And that stories are powerful juju.

Elizabeth Hand is the author of eight science fiction novels, three short story collections, a YA novel, and the genre-bending thriller Generation Loss. She has won multiple Nebula and World Fantasy Awards, the James Tiptree Jr. Award, the Mythopoeic Society Award, the Shirley Jackson Award, and multiple International Horror Guild Awards. [Full disclosure: her first novel, Winterlong, totally blew the roof off our mind when we first read it; we've been reading her work with obsessive devotion since we were probably about fourteen; when we got her email saying she'd do an interview, we shrieked so loudly Support Team thought we were having a medical emergency.]

Your work deals frequently with very fluid ideas of gender and sexuality; even your characters that are biologically female do things that are not traditionally associated with the feminine, like demand human sacrifice (and then there's Cass of Generation Loss, OUR FAVORITE OF THEM ALL (seriously)). Do you think you were drawn to science fiction in particular because it offered an avenue for looking at gender in different ways? Can you talk a little about what made you interested in exploring "transgressive" ideas of gender?

Well, to me they never seemed all that transgressive, to tell you the truth. I was a tomboy as a kid — I was skinny and had cropped hair and was often mistaken for a boy, and up until I was about six I had my own very fluid ideas of gender, in that I believed that, somehow, an individual could choose whether or not s/he wanted to be a boy or a girl. I identified more with boys than girls, so I assumed that eventually everything would sort itself out and I’d end up on that side of the bullpen. I was pretty bummed out when I realized I was stuck being a girl. I was like Anybody’s in “West Side Story.” I wanted to be tough. When we lived in Yonkers in a neighborhood full of kids, I was always getting into fights with boys and coming home with a black eye. I was provoking fights with boys — I liked fighting, even though I always got decked. I should have gone into Roller Derby.

Still, by the time puberty hit, I decided being a girl had its advantages.

I came of age in the 1970s, back in the Golden Triassic Era of glam rock and bisexual chic, so I pretty much absorbed my values from pop culture during a time when it was cool to dress in drag (women in tuxes, guys in frocks). Everybody slept with everybody else; AIDS hadn’t yet reared its fanged head, and in the crowds I ran with, everyone was either gay or pretending to be gay. I didn’t read much SF as a kid — I was a total Tolkien geek — but I started reading Samuel Delany and Angela Carter and Ursula LeGuin in high school, and I was definitely taken with the notion that here was a literature that could explore various notions of gender identity and how it affects the culture at large. Dhalgren and Triton were probably my biggest influences back then, for their vision of what Delany termed (in Triton ) ‘an ambiguous heterotopia.’ I liked LeGuin even though I found her SF novels too didactic — no breathing room in them for a reader. But I adored Angela Carter’s decadence, that whole 1960s acid vision come to life on the page; books like The Passion of New Eve and The War of Dreams . None of these works seemed particularly ‘feminist’ to me. They just made sense. They seemed like blueprints for the way the world should be.

How do you balance writing for love and writing for money? Do you have to turn off different parts of your brain when you're working on different projects?

Yeah, definitely. I’m trying not to do work-for-hire anymore, i.e., novelizations and the like — I don’t know how many prime writing years I have left, and I decided I wanted to focus as much as I can on my own stuff. I’m doing more teaching now, as faculty at the Stonecoast MFA program, which is a bit more rewarding than novelizing Catwoman. And I’m still doing book reviews, which I love — gives me a chance to keep the critical part of my brain cranking, especially when I can write at length in places like my column in FSF [The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction].

You wrote about apocalypse long before it was cool. Does the current cultural obsession with, like, Dystopian Vampires Apocalypse make you roll your eyes a little bit? What prompted your own preoccupation with apocalyptic fiction? Are you any more optimistic now about the survival of humanity?

I probably do roll my eyes sometimes, but I think it’s good that new writers (and old ones) are thinking about the problems facing us — which seem pretty fucking insurmountable. I was obsessed with the end of the world from a very early age — I was raised Catholic, and I must have been exposed to the Book of Revelations at Mass, and it then became conflated with air raid drills, which we practiced in kindergarten, and all the monster movies where Godzilla and Rodan and Tarantula and the like got exposed to the atom bomb and whomped Tokyo. I was obsessed with monster movies, too — if I had kept all my issues of Famous Monsters of Filmland, I never would have had to write Catwoman. I read 1984 at a precocious age, like 8, and when I did the math I realized that Julia, Winston Smith’s lover, was born the same year I was, 1957. I read that book over and over again, with the 1960s as a backdrop, anti-war and anti-bomb protests and this general pervasive sense of Doom. Which in some ways didn’t let up with the 1970s, certainly not with the environmental movement. There were such great environmentally-themed SF books from that time, stuff like Stand on Zanzibar and The Sheep Look Up, Dune. I wrote Glimmering in that spirit, a novel that anticipated a lot of terrible stuff that actually did come to pass in the last decade. Unfortunately, it was published in 1997, at the height of the go-go 90s, and that terrible bleak vision of the near-future was not what anyone wanted to read about. But it’s being reprinted next year by Underland Press, with a new intro by Kim Stanley Robinson. So I’m very excited about that.

I really did think the world was going to end, for a very long time. For years I’d have night terrors about nuclear attacks. All those early books of mine channeled a lot of that terror, and for a long time I thought I might not ever write about anything else. I thought Glimmering was real, and that was the world my kids were going to have to live in. I was stockpiling stuff for Y2K.

But finally there came a point where I thought, you know, maybe things aren’t really that bad, maybe I’m just crazy to be obsessing about all this apocalyptic shit and I should give it a rest. I can vividly remember thinking this, and writing it to someone in an email — and that was at the end of August, 2001, a few weeks before 9-11. At which point I thought, Well, maybe not.

No, I’m not terribly optimistic about our future. But, fifteen years on from writing Glimmering, I feel more like Leonard Thrope dancing at the edge of the abyss than like Jack Finnegan. And maybe that’s not a bad thing.

How much has punk influenced your work?

I was involved in the DC and NYC scene from about 1975 through the early 1980s, but as a participant observor, not an actor. I saw a lot of great shows by now-classic bands where there were literally only a few dozen people in the audience. The scene was tiny, especially in DC, where I lived at the time, and while I liked seeing bands in NYC, the clubs were more crowded there. Whereas in Washington I could stand about six inches away from Joey Ramone’s sneaker, and there were only about twenty people on the floor behind me. I remember thinking, Oh my god, this scene is so amazing, this music is so fabulous, this is going to be HUGE and I AM PART OF IT. I thought it was, you know, going to be like the 1960s, a huge seismic cultural shift culminating in some sort of huge punk Woodstock or something.

But it wasn’t. Punk fizzled out by 1979 — I really did have the experience I write about in Generation Loss, of being inside a Fiorucci boutique with these seventy-five dollar ripped “punk” t-shirts for sale inside and realizing it was over. Of course if I’d been savvy and had the bucks, I would have bought one of those shirts, which were by Malcolm McLaren. And of course punk really did end up percolating through the culture at large, though it took a little while for people to figure out how to sell it at the mall. In 1979 my boyfriend, a jazz lover, absolutely hated the Ramones. I told him, This is great American music! Some day, people are going to think of these guys like we think of the Beach Boys! He thought I was nuts. But I was right.

I still love it. I love lots of other music, too,and always have, but punk’s the soundtrack of my youth. I think you never escape the music you’re listening to and seeing when you're seventeen, eighteen, nineteen years old. So I feel really fortunate that I was at the right place at the right time.

You often write about protagonists who make colossally unsympathetic choices or giant mistakes, and you've talked elsewhere about your interest in complex, troubled artists and writers whose real-life choices may be a little hard to watch. Why do you think people who fuck up--like, REALLY fuck up--are so much more interesting in fiction and in life?

Well, I was always kind of a fuckup when I was younger, and everyone seemed to like me okay. I have kind of a soft spot for lovable losers and misfits and outsiders, people who, in real life, can be very difficult to take. I’ve known quite a few of them, and I really do think you can learn from people who see the world from a different angle. I don’t mean for this to sound condescending — I’ve been close to people who are mentally ill, or have serious issues with drugs or alcohol, and I know that their lives can be terrible and tragic, and the terrible fallout on their families is incalculable. I don’t have a romantic view of mental illness, or of individuals who are deeply troubled or damaged.

But I do have some experience of living inside that kind of self, of being out of control and terrified and unable to get my balance. Finding myself “at 90 degrees to the rest of the world,” as the Beta Band puts it in their great song “Round the Bend;” ”It’s not much fun, you can take it from me.” It’s not fun, and I’d far rather be calm and sane and productive. For a few years in my late teens/early twenties, I went off the rails a bit, and Cass Neary is a version of the self I might have become if I never rebounded from that.

And there’s definitely something cathartic about writing from her p.o.v. -- she’s all id, and I can channel a lot of anger and frustration through that voice. After Generation Loss came out, I heard from a lot of women of a certain age (mine), women who now have teenagers and jobs and carpools and aging parents and all the rest of the baggage that goes with being middle-aged and middle class, all them saying how they related to Cass because that’s what they were like at twenty, messed up and desperate and vibrating in the dark. There’s something empoweringabout the notion of a middle-aged woman who can knock back a fifth of Jack Daniels and an ounce of crank and kick ass in a pair of vintage Tony Lama steel-tipped cowboy boots.

As for writing about people who the world perceives as royal fuckups, I try to give them the happy endings, or at least happier endings, that evade them in real life. Maybe that’s wish fulfillment, or arrogance. Maybe I just relate better to flawed people because I’m one of them. I always think of Leonard Cohen’s great line: “There’s a crack in everything, that’s where the light gets in.”

Some books you've read lately and loved?

I’m reading Sebastian Horsley’s autobiography, Dandy in the Underworld, which is wonderful and terribly sad -- he died of a heroin overdose just a few weeks ago. Also reading Rick Moody’s massive (900 pages!) new science fiction novel, The Four Fingers of Death, which is a surprisingly old-fashioned (but very good) SF novel masquerading as a meta-fictional novel. Or it is so far; I still have hundreds of pages to go. Christopher Farnsworth’s Blood Oath was a lot of fun, also Larry Doyle’s Go, Mutants!