I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I am.
Quick summary (and please, someone correct me if I get this wrong): Helix, an SF magazine of which I had not previously heard, is edited by a William Sanders. Sanders sent a rejection note to a Luke Jackson, who posted the full contents on the Web. Jackson later removed the letter and apologized for having posted it, in a very strange way, and said Sanders's words were being taken out of context.
Sanders's words included:
"“most of the SF magazines are very leery of publishing anything that might offend the sheet heads” and
“You did a good job of exploring the worm-brained mentality of those people - at the end we still don’t really understand it, but then no one from the civilized world ever can - and I was pleased to see that you didn’t engage in the typical error of trying to make this evil bastard sympathetic, or give him human qualities.” (excerpts from Tobias Bucknell's page because the original post has been removed).
I am so floored that anyone would write those things, let alone in a rejection letter, that I hardly know where to start (but I'll try). One just doesn't talk about people that way! "sheet heads"? "the worm-brained mentality of those people"? Jackson insists Sanders meant only his protagonist, but the "sheet heads" are potential readers, not characters, and his protagonist is singular, so I don't think context really helps.
Much of the conversation seems to revolve around whether Jackson had any legal or ethical right to post the letter in full. To me, that seems a bit beside the point; at the very least, he had the right to post excerpts such as Bucknell includes, and some of the people addressing these "rights" seem unconcerned about the attitudes the rejection letter reveals, which I find far more frightening than the prospect of rejection letters being posted.
rydra_wong has a great set of links to the matter (and a somewhat related controversy over anthologies that emphasize male writers over female), in her posts for July 9 and 10.
Warning: most of her links connect to people condemning racism, but some of them quote or link to people who attack those who object to racism. Some of the language may not be work-safe, and parts are just really depressing; as I commented on one of Rydra's entries,
Neil Clarke's comment, "Dear lord, people like that do exist. I think I must live a sheltered life or perhaps I just hang out with a better quality of people" largely sums up my reaction to this whole mess....
Quick summary (and please, someone correct me if I get this wrong): Helix, an SF magazine of which I had not previously heard, is edited by a William Sanders. Sanders sent a rejection note to a Luke Jackson, who posted the full contents on the Web. Jackson later removed the letter and apologized for having posted it, in a very strange way, and said Sanders's words were being taken out of context.
Sanders's words included:
"“most of the SF magazines are very leery of publishing anything that might offend the sheet heads” and
“You did a good job of exploring the worm-brained mentality of those people - at the end we still don’t really understand it, but then no one from the civilized world ever can - and I was pleased to see that you didn’t engage in the typical error of trying to make this evil bastard sympathetic, or give him human qualities.” (excerpts from Tobias Bucknell's page because the original post has been removed).
I am so floored that anyone would write those things, let alone in a rejection letter, that I hardly know where to start (but I'll try). One just doesn't talk about people that way! "sheet heads"? "the worm-brained mentality of those people"? Jackson insists Sanders meant only his protagonist, but the "sheet heads" are potential readers, not characters, and his protagonist is singular, so I don't think context really helps.
Much of the conversation seems to revolve around whether Jackson had any legal or ethical right to post the letter in full. To me, that seems a bit beside the point; at the very least, he had the right to post excerpts such as Bucknell includes, and some of the people addressing these "rights" seem unconcerned about the attitudes the rejection letter reveals, which I find far more frightening than the prospect of rejection letters being posted.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Warning: most of her links connect to people condemning racism, but some of them quote or link to people who attack those who object to racism. Some of the language may not be work-safe, and parts are just really depressing; as I commented on one of Rydra's entries,
Neil Clarke's comment, "Dear lord, people like that do exist. I think I must live a sheltered life or perhaps I just hang out with a better quality of people" largely sums up my reaction to this whole mess....
From:
no subject
Uncool.
From:
no subject
I don't think I'd heard "sheet head" before, but it was close enough to "towel head" that I figured it out pretty fast.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I guess I'm not one to talk
Perhaps--but I think now. You and I had a disagreement at one point where a religion (more than race) was a factor, and, as you say, you never used a racial slur. You also make no claims nor offer the appearance of being in a position of authority. The editor of a magazine saying these things in official (even if personal) correspondence--that's beyond belief.
I think you have every right to speak about this. You recognize that your attitudes aren't perfect; I don't suppose mine are either, though I try. And that's the biggest problem: Sanders has not apologized for what he said and seems to see nothing wrong with what he said, just with the airing of it. None of us are without some bias. Some of us try to overcome it. Some don't even make an effort.
I think science fiction is all about trying to wrap one's head around other views and other possibilities, and I feel like Sanders is letting the side (of science fiction and its fans) down in multiple ways.
From:
no subject
And then I saw
From:
no subject
What bothers me is a combination of things. The slurs are mean, the characterization of all Muslims (though Jackson denies it and says Sanders meant only terrorists) as having a "worm-brained mentality" is hateful and frightening, and the wholesale labeling of another group of people as "those people" generally signals trouble (at least when applied to racial, ethnic, or religious groups). There's also the fact that it is informal, that there's a buddy-buddy tone to it: 'I can't accept your story, but even though I don't really know you, I think you're on my side, so I'm going to say nasty things about a whole group of people and assume you'll agree.' And the other man at least didn't seem to disagree!
I'm glad you hadn't heard those terms before; sorry to be the one to bring them to your attention.
From:
no subject
*Hugs you*
From:
no subject
That was my first reaction too.
I hope that there are fewer and fewer people like this.
From:
no subject
It seems that we will always have some form of ignorance and bigotry - we are talking humans after all! But to WRITE such a thing - much less believe in what you wrote?
*Shakes head*
*Is bewildered*
From:
no subject
Toatally bigotted, totally unprofessional and totally off! I too am a little bit sheltered. I know people who still insist on the right to say something offensive. Their excuse. "They do it to us"
I really try to treat others the way I want to be treated. Naive, I know but...
From: (Anonymous)
I should say
From: (Anonymous)
thanks much
From: (Anonymous)
well done
From: (Anonymous)
thank you