Log in

No account? Create an account

Seer of ghosts & weaver of stories

(You are very much not forgotten)

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Concern re: removal of a 2017 Rhysling Award nomination
ETA, 1/25/17: Yes, what you read in the final sentence of this entry, and more explicitly in the comments, is correct.  I'm running for SFPA Treasurer.  I'd been planning on making a bid at getting involved since spring of last year.  My M.F.A. program and teaching fellowship kept me busy till June 2016, but now that I've relocated and settled into my new employment, I can act on said plans.

ETA, 1/18/17: With regard to the below, Tlotlo's poem was reinstated as a nomination today.  Many thanks to all of you who signal-boosted this, offered thoughtful commentaries, and helped to shift the outcome.  I'm exhausted and have been in and out of clinic, hospital, and pharmacy waiting-rooms all evening.  I've had a severe cough for almost four weeks; it seems I was misdiagnosed at first.  Hopefully I'm on the correct medications now!  Anyway, sorry for the belated info; other people's posts got updated before mine.

I had fiercely hoped that this post of around a year and a half ago would be my first and last such concerning what I (and many, many others) observe to be dodgy award-nomination practices on the part of the SFPA.  Despite apparent declines in both the organization's membership and reputation, I've maintained my membership because the ability to nominate and support my community in recognition of their outstanding work is important to me.

Since nominations are currently open until February 15th for this year's Rhysling Awards, I did what I usually do: nominate one short poem and one long poem, both of which happened to be poems that I and one of my co-editors had published in Strange Horizons during the course of 2016.  In addition to meeting the line-count requirements, both poems were published in the correct year, in a magazine of speculative literature.  There are rules against nominating your own work, but there are no rules against nominating work you've had a hand in publishing.  And it's a good thing there aren't, because reading submissions guarantees you're at the front lines of reading the most exciting new work your community has to offer.

Both of my nominations were posted to the SFPA website's public list of poems nominated so far in 2017 within a couple days of receipt; this is a crucial piece of information.  Please keep it in mind.  In all the years I've been Rhysling-nominated, which is every year since 2011 with the exception of 2012, this is the speed with which nominations tend to be added to the list.  That is to say: pretty fast.  I know this because I've always kept a close eye on that webpage every time I've made my own nominations.  They've always appeared within several hours to several days, at least from what I've seen in the past 6 years.

While I was at Arisia this past weekend dashing from panel to panel, I received an upsetting message from the current Rhysling Anthology Chair.  My nomination for the Short Poem category, Layla Al-Bedawi's "Propagation," had been accepted, but my Long Poem nomination, Tlotlo Tsamaase's "I Will Be Your Grave," had been rejected.  I was being asked to find a different long poem to nominate because Tlotlo's piece was apparently not speculative enough.  First of all, I'd never heard of nominations being rejected; second of all, the nomination had already been made public on the website.  Poets had already been engaged in excitedly congratulating each other on their nominations for more than a week.  I was instantly outraged on Tlotlo's behalf, as I can't think of any universe in which publicly announcing a nomination and then deciding to revoke it after the fact isn't bad form.  I spent a number of hours on email urging the Chair to reconsider this decision in light of the fact that it would be deeply, deeply hurtful to the poet after they'd already seen their nomination, but Tlotlo's piece was removed before the day was over.

I had been careful to take a screencap of the nominations page when the first email landed, to prove it was still there and listed publicly, I likewise took a second screencap once I'd heard of its removal.  That was also the point at which I tweeted both the screencaps and what had happened, because I was floored that both parties I'd heard from thus far in the email chain (David Kopaska-Merkel and F.J. Bergmann) could not see that the unfairness of the move demands an immediate reversal.  As you can imagine, this has been circulated a great deal, and almost no-one I've seen pass it along (at this point, I've lost count of how many times the thread has been quoted and passed along with the reblogger's commentary; please keep in mind that this style of reblog does not show up in the tally at the base-link) has been in favor of the apparent "mistake" that the Rhysling team claims to have made (i.e. that the poem got posted before the Chair could properly vet it).

Mistake or not, this action is problematic for more reasons than I can reasonably delineate in one blog post.  At worst, it's exclusionary and, yes, even racist to claim that a poem by a writer of color, published in a speculative magazine, is not speculative enough by white/Western standards to be worthy of nomination.  At best, it really is just a mistake, but even at that juncture, it had been publicly posted before being revoked.  It's flat-out bad form to essentially tell someone, hey, congrats, you've earned this honor, and then say, oh, oops, sorry, our bad, it just didn't conform to standards, we've got to pull it.  No matter which way you consider it (and, frankly, I consider it in both), Tlotlo's owed an apology.

Even if past Rhysling Chairs have habitually rejected nominations, I'm going to hope that none of them posted the nominations to the website before vetting and subsequently accepting or rejecting them.  Oddly, nowhere in the Rhysling Nomination Guidelines does it mention that your nominations might be bounced back at you if the Chair doesn't approve of them, and I have yet to hear from anyone else that they've ever been told they needed to re-nominate on similar grounds.  I, for one, do not plan to re-nominate a Long Poem.  I have already submitted one; even if it's not reinstated, Tlotlo's poem remains my choice.

The discussion surrounding the situation with Tlotlo's poem continues on Twitter.  Amidst the surge of heartening support in favor of the nomination being reinstated, there have unfortunately been some insensitive statements:

It's better to be nominated and pulled than to get no nomination at all? Wow, that's cold.

We're just trying to understand what people consider SpecPo? Er, we're TELLING you.

For an organization with this many years and this many mistakes behind it, I'd say the majority of current officers have really failed to learn the lessons being too, too patiently spelled out for them by those of us with the energy to do so.  And that number of us is rapidly dwindling, and not listening to reports of real pain (whether intentional or not) caused to members of the speculative poetry community is no way to ensure long-term survival.

(In spite of everything, I do hope to get involved with the SFPA in the near future.  If I didn't take be the change / trouble / [applicable noun] you wish to see in the world seriously before, 2017 is hopefully the year in which I'll push it to the limit.)

  • 1
Hi, Diane - I do know who you are; it's been a while since we've had any kind of direct interchange, but I remember you. I'd like to apologize for my less tactful moments in all of this, too, up to and including assuming the identity of who made the tweets. Being at a convention, and severely ill, too, while all of this was taking place, didn't help. I suppose I should explain my motivations for reacting so relentlessly; there's wanting to see Tlotlo receive the honor she deserves first and foremost, but there's also a stacking-up of past incidents, experiences both my own and belonging to others, that just about made this the final straw. My first experience with hurtful behavior from someone in the SFPA happened long before I realized there were a host of others who had similar stories; it was circa 2008-2009, and I'd only been a member for a year or so, maybe two. Star*Line put out a call for subs to a prose-poetry guest edited special issue. Excited, as I'd recently written a prose-poem, I decided to submit. Less than a couple of hours after submitting, I received the single rudest rejection I've ever received from any editor, anywhere: the email contained only one contextualizing sentence, something like "This is not a prose poem, and I suggest that you have a look at this," and then the link to Wikipedia's entry on prose poetry. I have a locked post on this journal documenting the incident, in fact, because at the time I would never have been brave enough to post publicly about such a thing. As far as I could see, even by Wikipedia's (in theory) collaboratively-built standards, what I had written was a prose-poem. Yet the guest editor viewed me as so inept that the only solution was to snippily send me off to educate myself. In the years since that incident, I have seen at least ten or so other friends and colleagues receive treatment equally as shocking, equally as rude, equally as exclusionary. The parties behind these responses and behaviors are almost always the same handful of people, and yes, they're people who have been around/in the SFPA for a very long time.

I'm relieved to hear that a couple of poems have been reinstated, Tlotlo's included. I'm also glad to hear that the decision has been to err on the side of inclusion. What I'm really struggling to say here is that the SFPA has regularly managed to hurt and exclude many, many people, and the parties behind such responses either do not wish to see that the behavior is, nine times out of ten, offensive whether they intend it to be or not. I regret the fact that the equal-and-opposite reaction has been, almost out of necessity, a force and perhaps even offensiveness equal to the root cause. I have seen others try to drive the point home before now, but almost always to no avail. I have my own aspects of marginalized identity, but I still have more privilege than the poet who was most deeply affected by this situation. It has taken me a very long time to figure out how to use my voice, but I'm determined to use it for the benefit of those whose voices are most frequently waved aside. So, I think...what I most want to say at this point is that, although I'm sorry I caused hurt in the process (I consider David good longtime colleague; maybe not someone I have ever gotten to know well enough to call friend, but colleague all the same), I'm not sorry that I took the actions I did in order to see that this situation stayed on-radar.

I understand that organizations that have been around for a very long time become extremely set in their ways, but in no arena is it more vital (than in the arts) to learn adaptability. Writers change; writing changes. Genres tend to expand rather than contract, and Wikipedia definitions cannot tell us everything we need to know about a particular kind of poem. Thanks for listening and responding, Diane.

(I also know that this organization is run by an incredibly small crew. Far before all of this happened, in fact, I'd begun making inquiries to Bryan regarding what the role of Treasurer entails. I've decided to make a go of candidacy, because I'd have walked away completely long ago if I didn't care what becomes of the SFPA.)

Edited at 2017-01-21 05:15 pm (UTC)

That is great news - that you are planning to run for Treasurer! I do like to see people come forward to volunteer their time and talents. I understand that it's not always an option for many underprivileged people and I do my best to stick up for their voices, but I have very little power (no vote on official things, just consultancy) and I am not immune from blundering. The voices of establishment (within the SFPA) are vocal enough. As Treasurer you would have an official vote and could help us catch these things before they happen. Even with 3 out of 5/6 of us doing our best to make sure things like this don't happen, it still happened. :-( Bleargh. I'm glad to hear that you do still care about what happens to the SFPA.

It's so hard to navigate these issues. No one gets the benefit of the doubt that missteps are unintentional and therefore one is always put in a defensive position. Instead of being informed of one's errors and given a chance to rectify things, accusation and yes, intolerance is very often what's led with. Like I said, I'm sick that this keeps happening, but I also have a hard time understanding why people don't talk to us before tearing us a new one. I know what it looks like from the outside, but 50% of this year's executive committee was not even members when the Green-Reich-Affair was happening and 100% of us were not even in a position to influence what happened.

The executive committee is as follows (from the top down): Bryan Thao Worra, president; Sandra Lindow, VP; Shannon Connor Winward, Secretary; Deborah Flores (interim) Treasurer (not voting at present); FJ Bergmann, S*L editor and do-er of all things web-related; Diane Severson Mori, membership & communications chair and Volunteer Wrangler. Only officers have official votes on matters of policy, etc. FJ's an my opinions are often consulted.

On that note, may I point you toward an excellent blog post by our Secretary, Shannon Connor Winward, about all of this? Here's the link: http://www.shannonconnorwinward.com/?p=1374

I appreciate your words of reconciliation, AJ, and I apologize for making things worse. I agree that we must be ever-vigilant and work toward a culture of expansion within our rather narrow focus of speculative poetry. I really do, despite recent appearances.

AJ said, "I'd like to apologize for my less tactful moments in all of this, too, up to and including assuming the identity of who made the tweets."

I'm afraid my mind just isn't letting this go. I accepted your apology, but really I'm not the one to whom the apology should've been made. And I regret letting it slide.

FJ Bergmann was the one maligned by the assumption that she was the one tweeting, not me.

And I'm not sure why so many people are so quick to accuse her of wrong-doing. My professional relationship with her has always been good. I respect her a great deal for what she has done to raised the bar and I've never experienced her as exclusionary or discriminatory. Star*Line is a testament to the fact that she chooses widely and publishes diversely in sub-genre and poet. She DOES publish Fantasy. And award-winning Fantasy at that. She also writes it herself. And has done for a long time.

She can be prickly in print, you can't hear the way she's saying it, but on the other hand, stating facts, always sounds a bit prickly in an email or a brief post. For a while, we Skyped on a weekly basis, when it was basically just the 2 of us keeping the SFPA from falling apart. Now that we have a full complement of active officers and people besides us to chair the awards and contests, we do so less regularly, but it was important for me to get to know just who she was.

I'm appalled at how people talk about her. I have never seen her do anything that merited it. I see so much vitriol flung her way and find it inexplicable. She doesn't know what to do. Indeed, anything she would or has done would be and has been twisted beyond recognition.

I know I'm probably not doing my own reputation a favor here by coming to FJ's defence, but I couldn't live with myself, if I let her be vilified for something that I did.

While I understand that some, like you, have had a good relationship with the individuals from whom many of us have come to expect actions in bad faith (F.J. included), we unfortunately expect actions in bad faith because that's what we continually see from them. I appreciate that you wish to clear your conscience. The fact that I assumed a couple of things you said on the SFPA official Twitter were said by F.J. does not change the fact that F.J. did make statements on Twitter that were hurtful to Tlotlo/and others in Tlotlo's position. I feel that the largest present obstacle are conditions in which a handful of individuals are consistently offensive even if they don't realize they're being offensive, and no matter how many times this is highlighted by the people who are affected, the offensiveness continues and/or recurs. Past a certain point, we're hard-pressed to believe it's accidental anymore. It's regrettable that F.J. has been involved in a disproportionately high number of these instances, but it does keep happening. And I know that the SFPA has said it is hearing these concerns, but repeated instances of problematic behavior, knowing or not, do not go a long way to convincing wronged parties that this is the case.

  • 1