From the Harvard Divinity School

This is from the “This Week in Science and Religion” column.

Sci fi and social battles. The stories and perspectives of women and people of color have long been marginalized in science fiction, and some social conservatives want to keep things that way. Despite some exciting gains (all of the winners of the 2014 Nebula awards were women and people of color), one group of people is attempting to make sure that the Hugo Awards (sci-fi’s most prestigious honor) go exclusively to white heterosexual men. Since votes for the Hugo Award can only be cast by those who have paid an annual membership, one group of conservatives calling themselves “The Sad Puppies” have placed a slate of homophobic, sexist, and racist authors onto the ballot. The most prominent of these is an obscure writer named John C. Wright, who has publically called same-sex partnerships “an aberration” and “a filthy phallic idol,” and has referred to writers who depict GLBTQ characters as “termites” and “disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth.” We at Cosmologics sincerely hope that these vicious attitudes do not receive the honor of a Hugo Award.

I hereby announce a contest to see how many false, libelous or inaccurate statements exist in this paragraph of four sentences.

And, before you ask, no, no one from the publication spoke to me in preparation of the article. Their one link goes to Slate magazine.

And, before you ask, yes, I totally believe the press when they say Gamers are dead. That all these news organs come out in the same moment with the same story is totally believable. The press are neutral and objective, reporting only on facts.

And, before you ask, no, I will not be suing anyone for libel. I will turn the other cheek instead. It makes life easier and it drives them batty.

As a matter of logic, however, I cannot be both obscure and prominent at the same time and in the same sense.

As a matter of fact, I cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be more prominent a science fiction writer than Kevin J Andersen or Jim Butcher.

Perhaps the semiliterate authoress penning the sentence means merely that I am obscure among science fiction authors but nonetheless the most prominent of the sexist, racist, and homophobic science fiction authors? But, again, that would either mean (1) that Mr Andersen and Mr Butcher are not in these categories (in which case it is inaccurate to include them in the sentence when the whole slate is condemned) or (2) that I am more prominent than they.

Either one is a libel to them, but for different reasons.

As a matter of journalistic ethics, the article in Slate to which they linked in support of their propositions has this to say:

This post originally misspelled Brad Torgersen’s last name and misstated that the creators of the Legend of Korra revealed that a male character liked men. They revealed that two female characters liked women. It also misidentified Teresa and Patrick Nielsen Hayden as the founder of Tor Books. They are the founders of Ansatz Press. Finally, a sentence was  updated to clarify that the WSFS, or World Science Fiction Society, administers the Hugo Awards.

Emphasis mine. Mr Doherty is not pleased, I am sure.

However, please note, that the accusations by Katy Waldmanm, the Slate hack, of racism, sexism, homophobia, baby-eating and devil-worship and being reactionary filth leveled heedlessly at innocent strangers and bystanders, all of them souls unknown to her, have not been removed from the Slate article.

As a matter of logic, again, my attitudes are not up for the Hugo Award, nor my opinion about injecting leftwing agitprop into the children’s show LEGEND OF KORRA, but my stories and other written works are.

As a matter of logic, those who called Larry Correia a liar for saying that the Hugo Awards were denied to writers espousing unpopular, pro-Christian or pro-Conservative views (such as the view that one should not use a children’s cartoon, aimed at children, to promote the homosex agenda) have never yet withdrawn their remarks, recanted, or apologized.

Question: has or has not the Harvard Divinity School publication here voiced the preference that the attitudes — my personal political opinions — are sufficient grounds to deny me an award, which is allegedly an award given not for ideological purity, but instead for craftsmanship in science fiction writing?

Question: Is or is not Larry Correia correct in saying that there is a bias against rightwing or conservative or Christian authors haunting the science fiction field? If statements from Slate Magazine echoed uncritically in the Harvard Divinity Review do not constitute such a bias, what would?

Would, for example, statements asking all readers not to read anything by a white, straight, man for a year constitute such a bias?