ReaderWriterLinks
by Sunita
This week, we have a little more on the Hugos and a lot more on reading and writing. First up, Gili Bar-Hillel, an Israeli translator and editor, talks about another way in which the Hugos are narrow in scope. The rest of the world snickers when we call the US baseball championships the World Series, but we call the Hugo con the WorldCon even though it’s overwhelmingly North American and UK oriented:
So what am I saying here? I am saying that OF COURSE the Hugos are dominated by Americans. This should be of no surprise to anyone. I am also saying that if you truly want more world in your WorldCon, it will require conscious effort, not only to attract and encourage fans and writers from other countries to attend, but to actually listen to them on their own terms when they arrive. Stop with the tokenism and the pigeonholing. Don’t cram all of your foreigners onto special panels for and about foreigners – just as you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) relegate women only to panels about gender, and POCs only to panels about race. Not only does it rub our noses in the fact of our being outsiders, it makes it far too easy for the insiders to skip our panels for lack of interest, and not really expose themselves to us at all…
People like me, who are comfortable in more than one culture, can serve as bridges and connectors. We bring a different perspective just by being who we are. But not if we’re cordoned off and observed from a distance as alien objects. Non-Americans who come to WorldCons do so because we love science fiction and fantasy just as much as Americans do. We want to participate, not to be held up as examples of difference. I’m afraid that too often, the programming, while well intentioned, is inadvertently alienating – the opposite of what it purports to achieve.
This is the same kind of essentializing that we do when we talk about “people of color,” as if their color is their defining characteristic. Sometimes it is, of course, especially in terms of how they’re treated in society. But sometimes it’s not, and we do the US/UK-centric thing there too. (This topic is too big for a links post, but I’m working on something longer.)
The author Aminatta Forma strikes a similar chord when talking about the way she and her book have been received and categorized by the UK and US literary communities:
Some years ago I was invited to speak at Oxford University, and I was perhaps naively surprised to find my book taught by the African studies department and nobody from the department of English literature in attendance at my talk. Everyone in the audience was an Africanist. That was when I first heard the words “the English canon”. Now, the English canon, like the British constitution, is tricky to discuss because it doesn’t actually exist: it is unwritten, yet at the same time everybody seems to know what it is, everybody in the world of English literature that is.
. . .
After The Hired Man was published, I gave a talk in a New York bookstore. Some days later I went back into the bookstore to redeem a gift voucher they had kindly given me. Out of curiosity I looked for my book and found it in the African section. An assumption had been made. I located a manager and explained I was the author and that the book was set in Croatia. She picked up the book and walked away with it, her dilemma written into her entire posture, her slow pace. Where now was she to place this book? Under Balkan literature? A few weeks later I was sent a photograph by a friend; there was my book in the same bookstore, prominently displayed on a table marked “European Literature”.
So where should a bookshop shelve a novel set in Croatia and written in English by a Scottish Sierra Leonian author? Over the years I have posed the question of classification to many writers about their own work and the answer is invariably the same: in bookshops, fiction should be arranged in alphabetical order.
But of course, readers want category-based shelving to help them find books that are similar to each other, and many commercial fiction writers embrace categories because readers in their genre will more easily find their books. Remember how Julia Quinn supposedly chose her pseudonym so that she would be shelved next to Amanda Quick? Genre-fiction arguments tend to be about which categories to use, not whether categories should exist at all.
Next up, a bookseller talks about why print books and bookshops are important to him. Ignore the clickbait-y eyeroll of a headline, because Nicholls also reads ebooks and seems to like them just fine. But he makes a couple of points about print books and reading as a practice which really resonated for me:
Although he reads a lot on his e-reader, Nicholls said he doesn’t want a soundtrack to a book, or sound effects or illustrations or an audio commentary from the author, and he doesn’t want to “interact” with the story. “When I was a child I used to read those fantasy books where you got to decide on what happens next and they were always, without exception, deathly. Fiction is about telling; I want to be told. I want the author to know better than me, even if the story makes me sad, or frustrated or angry. I want a book to be fixed black marks on a white background, simultaneously so little and so much,” he said.
But Nicholls admitted he could feel the “hard line” between print and digital “softening”. As new figures from Nielsen Book reveal that ebooks accounted for 30% of book units purchased in 2014, the novelist expressed the hope that the book market would reach “some kind of equilibrium, a kind of peaceful co-existence; the survival, perhaps even the resurgence of books and bookshops alongside the continuing success and evolution of digital forms, a thriving community of readers meeting at festivals and fairs alongside a noisy, opinionated but generally positive and passionate online community.
“As a fortune-teller, my qualifications are non-existent, but what I hope for is a thriving, growing passion for marks on the page, whether that page is on paper or a screen,” he concluded.
I never read choose-your-own-adventure books as a child for the same reason: I want to read the author’s story, not mine. I can write my own (OK, I can’t, but you know what I mean). I want to peek into the author’s imagination and interact with it. There’s something magical to me about that, which is why I don’t want to tell an author what to write, or take a character in a different direction. I want to experience the product of someone else’s imagination and be invited into their fantasy world. I realize that makes me a minority in our online community, where just about everyone writes fiction of some kind, but I’m too old to change now. Like Nicholls, I want both types of people to be able to coexist peacefully, whether we’re talking e- and print consumers or writers and readers.
And finally, a post you’ll either love or hate. The author finds that the internet has made him too distracted to read books with the concentration they deserve:
Most nights last year, I got into bed with a book — paper or e — and started. Reading. Read. Ing. One word after the next. A sentence. Two sentences.
Maybe three.
And then … I needed just a little something else. Something to tide me over. Something to scratch that little itch at the back of my mind— just a quick look at email on my iPhone; to write, and erase, a response to a funny Tweet from William Gibson; to find, and follow, a link to a good, really good, article in the New Yorker, or, better, the New York Review of Books (which I might even read most of, if it is that good). Email again, just to be sure.
I’d read another sentence. That’s four sentences.
McGuire solves his concentration problem by spending less time online, not watching TV at night, and reading on an ereader. He uses studies on the effect of dopamine and other peoples’ similar experiences with reduced ability to listen to music without distraction to buttress his arguments. There are studies that provide opposite evidence (there almost always are), but this article appealed to me because it mirrors my experience. Like McGuire, I love books and I love to read, but I also found that my ability to concentrate while reading, writing, and just plain thinking had become much worse. It’s an ongoing battle for me to focus on what I’m doing rather than taking a minute to check my email or RSS feed.
I’m sure there are many people who can happily read a book while checking Twitter, Facebook, or their phone’s notification screen. I’m just not one of them. I don’t think I’m reading more books now that I’m single-tasking, but I’m enjoying my reading more. And yes, like McGuire, I do most of it on an ereader.
Have a great week, everyone!
I’m glad that the discussion around minority voices and POC etc. is continuing. I agree, that focusing on such things because they are minority is wrong-footed. I remember I took a Minority Cultures In America Today in, oh, 1994 I think. It was taught by a white woman from Paris who was getting her PhD in African American Studies. She insisted there were only four minorities who were persecuted: African American; Mexican and Latino American (it had become, by that time, inappropriate to use the term “Hispanic” to describe people who came from Mexico or Central and South America); Asian American; and Native American Indian. Puzzled, I asked what about Irish? She told me that it didn’t count, because Irish people could “pass.” She and I wrangled about it most of the term, when it came up, and her question on the final was highly unprofessional, in my unhumble opinion: “Describe why these four minorities are the persecuted minorities in America today.” I’m paraphrasing, just setting it off in quotes for clarity.
I remember back then, I was getting my bachelors degree in Russian. After the Soviet Union fell, scientists discovered that Russian and Soviet scientists had faced many of the same dilemmas that Western scientists had, but solved it differently because they lacked funding, access to technology, and computers. I also remember being startled at the huge literature of science fiction and speculative fiction that was being produced. My professors at the time refused to help me read any of it, too, which was another puzzling thing. They insisted (and by they, I mean 3 of them whom I asked) (it was a tiny department) that wasting time reading such things was a poor use of my reading time, and that I should be spending my limited time reading things in the classics, like Pushkin or any of the others in the syllabi.
I didn’t really question it at the time, other than to be annoyed, but it was tough to be a student of Russian without any family background and the inability to go to Russia (my mother, as it happens, was a jingo). So now, as I’m watching this debate, I’m reminded of that chauvinism and am profoundly grateful for the democratizing effect of the internet. But, here’s a question: we talk about the growing digital divide; what effect is that going to have on the literature if the ones who start creating it are the minority that have access to the internet? What voices are we missing in that process?
On the bifurcation of our attention, I think that’s partly discipline – the discipline to concentrate. We have forgotten that concentration is valuable and are under the collective misunderstanding that there’s such a thing as multitasking. Studies have shown that we can’t do it, and that broken concentration takes, on average, 20 minutes to restore, yet we seem addicted to distraction. I almost got run off my lane this week by a woman driving a very large, expensive SUV, and when I looked over, yup. She was texting and trying to drive on the interstate going 65 miles an hour. I don’t want to sound like a luddite, because I like my internet, but I do think that unplugging in order to concentrate is critical.
Here’s a thing I’ve observed when teaching prompt classes. I have been allowing laptops (though I’m thinking that, in future, I may not) and I do notice a different in output between the people with notebooks and the people that have laptops in front of them. The ones with notebooks struggle, too, but they get moving more quickly and stay moving for longer. I have started saying to those with laptops to turn off their wifi; it’s amusing the looks of abject panic and then anger that is on their faces almost to a person. This is, in case we were wondering, the sign of an addiction. Hmm. 🙂
What effect have you noticed it having on your students?
Now, where did I put my phone so I can check my feeds?
LikeLike
The English-language internet still dwarfs all other languages, and many ESL people wind up communicating in English just because that’s where they find the largest communities and most information. China is unusual because it’s ring-fenced, but if you *can* write/read English, you have much more access, and we don’t talk about that enough. It permeates every part of the cultural conversation online.
My students multitask without realizing it. I have never prohibited computer and tablet use, but I’m thinking of requiring them to use pen and paper in my fall seminar. I haven’t decided, but I want to do something that makes the classroom a self-contained space. It’s a problem, and it’s not just because that age group is attached to their phones. It’s a larger issue of expecting people to be doing lots of things all the time and never being fully untethered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm. I didn’t think about China and access. Say more about that.
I see your problem with students. When I was getting my masters, many of the professors prohibited laptops, but that’s a problem for me because I take my notes by typing, typically. I used an AlphaSmart, which is a dumb keyboard (“dumb” in the sense that it doesn’t do anything but take typed text); it was highly effective. I got the professor to approve it, but what helped is I touch type and just kept it in my lap. (It was funny, though; one day a young woman who clearly hadn’t been paying attention in class came up to me and demanded that I share my notes with her. When I said no, she got irritated and said it wasn’t a big deal, I should just email them. I lied and said they were in short-hand, but my feeling was (and still is), if you want the notes, honey, you take them yourself. And if you can’t type, record the class. I used to do that, but found that I never listened to the recordings (and, as it turns out, I’m not an auditory learner).
Maybe having discussions in the round will accomplish what you’re trying to do? That forces engagement and brings people into the moment. The trouble is, and I know you know this but am just spit-balling here, that not everyone learns the same way. So when we decide to force the method of knowledge acquisition, we end up losing students that don’t learn that way. I don’t envy you the problem.
How have students’ results on test changed? Do you find that there’s a measurable difference because of the gerbil-brained-ness, or does it actually affect tests?
LikeLike
I love Alphasmarts, but those clacky keys would definitely be noticed in a seminar. 😉 And I agree that a big problem with forcing a particular type of note-taking is that people have varied ways of learning. That is part of what holds me back from having any kind of computer/no-computer rules.
I am very fortunate in my students. They are very smart and very hard-working, so I don’t find an overall decline in their achievement. It would be very hard to measure changes in educational accomplishment, given all the things you can’t hold constant. Which is one of the reasons teachers hate standardized-test-driven policies so much. Assessment is incredibly difficult, even with high-achieving students and good teachers. We work on it at my university, but it’s a moving target.
LikeLike
I have never even attempted to read while doing other things. It’s always been a single-focus task for me. Once I’ve opened the kindle, that’s it. Everything else is off and it genuinely doesn’t even occur to me to start checking social media or whatever. Well, okay, when I was reading academic books I didn’t want to, I sometimes tried to do that while checking twitter every five seconds, but it was pretty clear that wasn’t effective as a way of reading.
LikeLike
I’m not sure when I started. It’s not just about online distractions; I used to commute on public transit a lot when I lived in Chicago and NYC, and you had to have one eye on your surroundings then, if only to make sure you made your stop. But my so-called multitasking (which was basically surfing, emailing, and tweeting) got really bad a few years ago. Some people are good at it, but I am not.
LikeLike
I thought it was interesting that in the Dear Author discussion today about what device you read on, people mentioned e-ink as easier on their eyes, but I don’t think anyone (in the first 40 or so comments I read, anyway) mentioned fewer distractions. That’s one reason I prefer paper or e-ink to tablet/phone for reading. Ros is right, as always!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read on an eInk reader but I usually have the iPad with Tweetbot open right next to me so reading on my Kobo doesn’t make much difference distraction-wise for me! 😀
LikeLike
Yes, and it’s certainly one reason I’m not tempted to read on my tablet except in emergencies. I love my ancient Kindle Keyboard. I’ve replaced it like for like twice now and I would do it again if this one died.
LikeLike
I noticed that too. And I have thought at least twice in my posts and comments here recently that I needed to add the #rosisright hashtag. 😉
LikeLike
LOL! I am one step nearer to world domination. Though I should point out that I often need a #rosiswrong hashtag too.
LikeLike
You know, I just had a thought. Is the idea of genre and, therefore, the Hugos, America-centric to begin with? I was wondering all day why there isn’t the same distinctions in Russian literature (or at least there wasn’t when I was studying; there may have been some developed since I left school). Maybe part of the problem of POC invisibility is that POC fiction isn’t separated in the same way? For example, I remember the anecdote of Gabriel Garcia Marquez reading the beginning of Kafka’s Metamorphosis and thinking he didn’t realize that one was allowed to write such things. He went on to write about an angel with insects in his wings, who had become infested with vermin. Clearly speculative, it’s not written as science fiction or urban fantasy or whatever; it’s written as story. Now, this is the problem of genre anyway, since genre is a marketing distinction and not a literary one; but I wonder if, since genre was determined by American stores and then pushed online since the companies selling books online started here and in the English-speaking world, that affects the discussion?
LikeLike
Genre is probably most highly developed in the marketing sense in the US, but it’s not confined to the US. After all, Mills & Boon began in the UK, as did Penguins. I’d say our current genre distinctions really took off in the 1970s. Before that you had paperbacks and pulp fiction, but pulp publishers mixed different types of fiction within the mass-market format. A great book on the transformations within the 1970s is John Sutherland’s Bestsellers. One of these days I’ll write a post on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, please do. It’s a question that comes up fairly often, every few months, when I’m teaching prompt circles. People want to know what genre’s hot, what genres are by definition, and whether they can write something that isn’t one genre or that is many of them mashed together. My frequent response is that genre is a marketing distinction, developed to sell books, not a literary one. But getting some more context would be useful (not to mention just interesting). 🙂
LikeLike
Genre *is* a literary term too, of course–it dates to Classical Greek and the distinction between poetry, prose and drama. Literary scholars still use the term in that sense (e.g. a “three genre” introductory lit course that covers fiction, poetry and drama) as well as in the more contemporary publishing/marketing sense.
LikeLike
Yes, definitely. I was thinking about that when I was writing my comment; genre is so old, but the marketing of genres as specific publishing categories is much newer. I was reminded that the first pulp fiction lines were really about the physical format and not the content.
LikeLike
“I was reminded that the first pulp fiction lines were really about the physical format and not the content.”
Which certainly applies to Mills and Boon in its early days. It didn’t specialise in romance until later. I’m also reminded of the fluidity of genre. Some of Heyer’s books were initially sold as action-adventure stories (Regency Buck was one), rather than romance. The history of her covers is fascinating as a study in genre as marketing device.
LikeLike
I’m looking forward to a post from you about “POC” as a term. I’ve read a number of things linked by you and others lately that have really made me think about how flattening, essentializing terms/ categories like that are both useful and problematic. And how difficult this kind of thinking makes it to read truly diversely, because it isn’t only the number of stories but the *kinds* of stories that are limited by the attitudes of the very white North American publishing world. I find the fact that articles about this are being written and shared to be a hopeful sign, though.
LikeLike
It’s a minefield. Even in my field of the social sciences, we recognize that umbrella terms like “Asian” or “Latin@,” let alone POC, are political useful but obfuscate many critical differences. And thanks to a couple of extremely noisy and even more annoying Spokespeople of the Internet, it’s almost impossible to talk about how class and ethnicity intersect. But I’ll take a stab at it. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim Hightower has some interesting ideas on class and ethnicity in his book, but I can’t remember which one – it’s either There’s Nothing In the Middle of the Road But Yellow Lines and Dead Armadillos, or If God Had Wanted Us To Vote, He’d Have Given Us Candidates. I think it’s the former. It was the first time I had come across a frank and empowering discussion about the differences of ethnicity and class, and how concentrating on the color line ignores our real commonalities of class and, therefore, can disempower us as minorities because we’re focusing on the wrong ball while the fat cats, to paraphrase, are cleaning up.
LikeLike
What makes it complicated is that they really do intersect, both in terms of groups and individuals, so the effects of class are mediated by race, ethnicity, and gender.
LikeLike
I shall look forward to that post, too.
LikeLike
I blogged about it in 2011, but a few months ago, I re-read Monk Mind by Leo Babauta. It’s about single-task focus that this time around had a profound influence on my attitude towards tasks like reading. You remember even earlier this year, I was bemoaning how difficult it was to concentrate on books outside the romance genre? Well, I took that as a challenge. I reduced my social media presence, and I try really hard not to check it obsessively. As a result, my focus has gone up, and I’ve tackled some “hard” books, and like you, I’ve found the experience has been immensely rewarding as a reader.
LikeLike
I had a similar experience, and it’s been gratifying to discover that concentration can be restored. I was afraid it was going to be like the ability to learn languages, where you lose facility over time. And maybe we do, but just getting back the amount I have has felt good.
LikeLike
I first noticed the abbreviation ‘POC’ last last year in reference to the debate happening in SSF and in gaming. I was taken aback when I saw what it stood for because, immediately for me, it completely diminished – and still does – the differences of ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, class, religion, ideology, and cultural background in general. Contextually, I understand why the term may have been used initially, but I believe its continued use is doing more harm than good. Whenever I see ‘POC’ it makes me cringe.
LikeLike
I think the acronym has been given a huge boost by the 140-character limit of Twitter. Not that all activism takes place on Twitter (to put it mildly), but activists who are on Twitter need mutually agreed upon terms. So we wind up with the the lowest/shortest common denominator. And since the US dominates English-language social media, US terms wind up dominating.
LikeLike
[…] Thoughtful book linkity from ReaderWriterVille. […]
LikeLike