« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »

8 posts from February 2010

February 28, 2010

More On Bullying

Found this awesome article in Psychology Today from 1995, but updated last year, much of which validates my own post on bullying.

The article talks about research on bullying done in Sweden and elsewhere, and how bullies are a distinct character type, who are parented in a particular way. There are two types of bullies, and studies show that, among boys at least, bullies test among the lowest levels of testosterone in their peer groups. (This is because bullying is ineffective at making the bully dominant in their overall peer group; they are only dominant among the people they bully. Ineffective people have low testosterone.)

The article also talks about the differences in bullying styles between boys and girls. Boys tend to engage in violent bullying, whereas girls tend to engage in "relational" bullying, in which desired relationships are manipulated or withheld. I didn't include all the behaviors this article calls "relational bullying" in my own list of bullying behaviors. In my opinion, there's no hard line between behaviors maintaining a social hierarchy, and relational bullying behaviors. Hierarchy-building requires that lower-status members get aversive feedback to prevent incursions. It's hard to say when aversive feedback becomes abusive for its own sake.

But since I'm not a big fan of either social hierarchies or of relational bullying, I'm happy to let the one slide into the other, and both slide into the sea.

February 23, 2010

Birthday Party/Book Release

Yay! As of three minutes ago, I'm officially fort-- er ... twenty-nine. Yay for me!

To celebrate, I'm having a party tonight (Tuesday) apropros of which the following information will be relevant:


Tuesday, February 23, 2010
7:00pm - 10:00pm
Socha Cafe, 3235 Mission Street, San Francisco

Come celebrate my four decades on this earth, and the start of the next four! Also: Help officially launch my new chapbook, SLIGHTLY BEHIND AND TO THE LEFT. I'll also be selling limited edition, hand-printed book jackets by Wasabi Press (see the image to the right and the video of Patty printing covers below!)

There will be readings (by me and others) as well as music and performances and silliness. We'll have a mic, so if you have five minutes' worth of something creative, please let me know!

Plus, we'll just be celebrating the start of a new, more morally prosperous and creatively appreciative decade. Yee Haw!

February 18, 2010

Reading Update

Rick Riordan's The Lightning Thief

Since this is shaping up as the new Harry Potter-esque film crossover, I thought I'd check it out. Pretty fun. He also makes an interesting point about western civilization in the book that I've just been making while teaching writing (and will make again and again.) His point, though, seems to imply that western civ rules the world period, no critical thinking about it. So a bit problematic.

But given that you want to update Greek mythology for kids (in goofier-than-Gaiman way) I think this is a pretty good try.

February 16, 2010

Why Aren't Women and POC Submitting Their Work?

ETA 5/6/13: I'm re-reading this now because of a discussion I'm having with someone, and I'm realizing that some of the criticisms below in comments are more accurate than I could see at the time I wrote it. I wrote this post with the explicit intention of "validating" the perception that women/poc submissions "aren't as good" as white submissions as a rhetorical device. My intention was to validate that perception to draw the reader in, and then smack them over the head with the fact that too many terrific women/poc writers simply aren't submitting for the following reasons (etc.)

I'm realizing now that this was not a super-effective tactic. And I have to admit that I didn't think it through clearly. When I conceived of this piece, I had recently been fired from a paid gig at an online magazine that was all white (except for me) and mostly male. Although I got some legit-sounding excuses for being fired, I didn't think it was a coincidence that I was fired right after I intensified my campaign to diversify the artists and writers being covered in the magazine. These things are hard to prove, though. The editor in question had told me that: a) they didn't get enough submissions from writers-oc and b) the ones they got weren't good enough. I had also been trying to diversify another (paid) online magazine that some friends were involved with and that I read but didn't contribute to. They told me the same thing: not enough submissions, not good enough. The way the editors I knew said this reminded me of how editors in this online fight had been saying that they don't get enough woc subs, and I noticed (or thought I noticed) that there was an unspoken implication that the subs they did get weren't good enough.

The other thing was that I thought it might well be true that the editors I had talked to weren't getting good submissions from woc because the good woc weren't submitting to them. I had had that experience as an editor of a poc magazine -- one of not getting enough good submissions even though I was seeing terrific writers in the community all the time. That was something that no one would say in public, and I was struck with the idea of writing a piece that did say it, and then turned it around on its ear. And then I simply wrote it, without thinking of how off-putting or ultimately inaccurate that would be. Bait-and-switch is fundamentally dishonest, and even if my intention was always honesty, honest dishonesty is ... uh ... problematic? I should have been more straightforward, is what I'm saying.

Also, a writer below took me to task for saying that most women or poc "fail" to make the leap to mainstream mags. My intention was always to use the word "fail" to mean "didn't do," and my critic contended that my use of "fail" expressed actual failure in the not doing. I.e.: it sounded like I was criticizing women/poc for not making that leap, and calling them failures. Because this was never my intention, I dismissed the criticism at the time. In re-reading, I'm realizing that she was completely right. This is exactly how that sentence, and its contextualizing language, reads. I should have worded that much more carefully. My critic, understandably, didn't believe me when I wrote back that an accusation of "failure" wasn't my intention with that wording. All I can say about that is that when I wrote this post, I had just recently made a completely conscious decision to publish my first book with a diversity-focused feminist small press, and deliberately did not submit it anywhere else. I did NOT consider this "not doing" a "failure."

Now, on to the original post:

***

I'm about to post something more on the general topic area of literary diversity, but I realized that I've never actually written a more foundational post that I've been meaning to write for a couple of years now.

Basically, this is about the totally valid and justified complaints of white editors that writers of color and women aren't submitting enough work to them. This is absolutely true (as far as it goes.) If you teach (as I do) writing in community orgs, 90-99% of your students will be women and poc. If you've studied creative writing in universities, even or especially at the MFA level (as I have), you'll know that about 60-75% of students are women. But start reading slush for a major publisher or journal and you'll notice a sudden, steep drop in the percentages of women, and an even steeper drop in the percentages of poc submitting work. And look at what is actually published and you'll see the drop is even steeper: mostly men, mostly white.

ETA: Some of Those who read slush know will tell you (although it's not cool to talk about in these terms ETA: as evidenced by the heated comments below. Please note, this is my experience and that of many folks I've talked to or read stuff from, not a universal experience.) that the submissions from women and poc are often disproportionately sucky, which is sometimes why even the proportions of women and poc who submit aren't reflected in the proportions of women and poc actually published. (Sometimes. There's usually also a factor of white male editors not quite getting the culture or language of marginalized writers, so they don't fully appreciate the nuances of the work. But that's another discussion.) So when a white male editor says, "We only had one woman and one poc in the anthology because we were going for the best work," that could be true, or true-ish.

(ETA: with reference to comments below, let me just put in here that your percentages may vary. We're still working with more women (and a larger percentage of poc) attending writing classes, but more men and white writers actually submitting work. How radical your discrepancy is, like I said, varies, but the discrepancy exists.)

And yet, I know from teaching and learning in community and academic settings that there are metric tons of good poc and women writers out there, just waiting to be plucked from the vine.

What gives?

For someone like me, and many of you, who are in on every step in the long, slow process of literary accomplishment (looks like this: community writing classes, MFA courses, community readings, ethnic magazines, indy publishers, mainstream lit magazines, major publishers -- I am or have been involved in all of these except the last two) it's very easy to see that there's a huge chasm at one step in this process. And that chasm comes between writers developing their craft in the bosom of their communities, and writers taking a leap away from their local identity communities into the ether of the mainstream -- basically at the point where writers have to take a deep breath and submit their work to mainstream editors who don't know them and aren't familiar with the communities they come from.

Here's the problem:

MOST WOMEN AND POC WRITERS FAIL TO MAKE THAT LEAP.

Yeah, that's right: most of them. You know all the "ethnic" and women midlist writers at majors who will get dropped soon and move to indies because they get no attention? For every one of those, there are at least three who never bothered with the majors but stayed in indie and community publishing, and ten who never made the leap to publishers at all. Yes, it's true. It's not that most women and poc writers fail to become good enough to make that leap. It's that, of those that reach a point where they CAN make the leap, most either don't recognize that they've reached that point, or, for other reasons they never manage to make the leap.

I have a friend near my age who was taking community writing classes with me, started an MFA the year after I did, and has been writing just as long. When this friend finally got a story published, it was in an ethnic mag. Last time I checked, my friend still hadn't submitted any work to mainstream journals.

Why not? What are those reasons? Enlightened editors want to know. Well, I have some ideas, although I can't speak for all women/poc writers who don't make the leap (please feel free to add ideas in the comments.) These reasons are in order of frequency (in my opinion):

  • Many women/poc writers don't hang out in mainstream literary circles locally or online so they don't know what to expect or what's expected of them in this scene. They don't understand how to "break in" to mainstream markets, so they stick to the literary scene they know how to work.
  • They don't know about your publishing house/journal (see directly above).
  • They know about your publishing house or journal but don't think you take work from women/"ethnic" writers. (This impression usually comes from the actual dearth of women/poc writers in your mag or on your list.)
  • They know you'll technically read work from women/ethnic writers, but don't believe their work will be taken seriously or given a fair reading.
  • They know you'll read their work with an earnest intention of fair play, but don't believe you're equipped to understand it.
  • Those who do submit work often don't submit their best work, because they fear their best work will be considered "too ethnic" or "chicklit," so they submit more standard "literary" work that their hearts weren't really in.
  • They don't think that anyone like them READS your books or your magazine, and they want to reach their own audience.
  • They have a political agenda around their work and have decided that that agenda is best served by keeping their work within their communities.
  • ETA: Ide Cyan and Minal Hajratwala added another good point in the comments. As Minal put it: "A serious economic/class differential that means that many women of color who write are barely able to eke out the hours to write, let alone any extra hours to venture into a whole new & unwelcoming literary 'scene,' to network, attend conferences/ workshops, research publications, submit work, blog or read blogs, deal with rejection (in the face of a host of other societal rejections)... Some of the students in my community-based classes are writing mainly because it helps them survive, and the idea of publication is not a priority."

Most of those good writers who don't submit do it for the first two reasons. I know, it's hard for editors and publishers to remember a time when they didn't know the rules and the landscape. Many editors and publishers grew up in culturally savvy families or communities, so they don't even know how they learned the rules and the landscape. But the folks who aren't submitting either don't know the rules, or don't think they're considered important enough to engage the rules. They either don't have a map to the landscape, or simply think that it's a closed, privately-owned parcel of land. And far too often they're right.

And most of them aren't necessarily even aware that they think this way. I can't tell you how many writers I've encouraged to submit their work who had never done it before because it simply never occurred to them. They never signed up for a writers list-serv. They don't read lit blogs that post opportunities on them. They don't know about Writers Market or the Poets & Writers database. They don't know that you can (and sort of have to) look the various markets up and note down their guidelines and simply submit work according to the guidelines. (There's a big component in here of internalized racism, where the writer has been absorbing messages of her inferiority for her entire life, and is unwilling to risk being rejected on that basis, but that's another blog post.)

I have a good friend who has been writing for decades. My friend has a towering reputation in local and extended identity communities, is invited to read around 10 times a year in a variety of venues, has had work published in a number of anthologies, has edited an identity-based anthology published by an indy publisher, and has also been the editor of a literary journal. This friend had an offer of a book on the table from an indy before the economy went to shit and the publisher had to taper off publications for a while. This friend has never made an unsolicited submission. So when the indy publisher had to rescind the book offer, my friend didn't know what to do. When I suggested we get proactive and prepare a package of work to send out as an unsolicited submission, my friend was both surprised and relieved. And this is someone with a lot of publication and literary experience. This is someone even the most boneheaded white male publisher would be delighted to get a submission from.

So, the point of all of this is that editors have to go out and find good writers of color and women writers just like they have to go out and find good white male writers. The obvious first place to start is independent magazines and publishers, but editors will need to go deeper than that. (I won't go into it again here.) And the big issue is not just knowing where to look, but knowing how to approach.

A number of small gestures can make a huge difference. Make the whole experience as painless and welcoming as possible. For example:

  • Make sure your submission guidelines are easy to find on your website. Don't hide them. Add language to your guidelines that specifically welcomes women and writers of color. Something like "We are especially interested in innovative work by women, writers of color, and writers from historically marginalized groups. We love to discover new writers!" Don't beat around the bush. Be plain.
  • When you go through your back issues/backlist for the big names to list on your website, be sure to put the names of women writers and poc front and center. A publisher/magazine that has a lot of recognizable "minority" names on its website is basically putting out the welcome mat for "minority" writers. This is a subtle language you must learn to speak.
  • When you send a call for submissions out on a list-serv or send it to a website for a "minority" group, be sure to personalize it and express your strong desire to get submissions. Sign it with your name. Say something like, "I really want to encourage you all to submit work. Our submissions pile isn't nearly as diverse as it needs to be, and as a result, our publications aren't as diverse as they need to be. You can help change that. Please take a chance on us and send us your best work!"
  • Write up a brief primer (maybe a paragraph) on how to make an effective submission (including maybe a little something about what to put, and what not to put, in a cover letter.) Include this in your call for submissions. Make your expectations plain, and don't give anyone any excuses not to submit.
  • Be sure to ask them to tell you in their cover letter where they heard about your magazine or publishing house, so you can track where the submissions are coming from; and ask them to include a brief bio that talks about their origins, so you can get a sense of where your writers are coming from. Encourage them to talk to you about who they are and what their process is, so you can understand it all better.
  • If you're rejecting a promising submission from someone who's obviously a writer of color or who says they're coming from a poc website or list-serv, be sure you personalize the rejection with at least some minimal feedback, and an encouragement to submit again. Yes, I know you don't have time, but it's part of an editor's job to cultivate promising writers, and if you want a healthy field of diverse writers in ten years, you have to plant now. This is assuming that you actually DO send rejection letters out. Many journals don't reject in a timely or consistent manner, and there's nothing more off-putting to someone who already thinks they're not going to get a fair shot, than being utterly ignored. Basically, acknowledgment is key, even when you're rejecting.

That's all fairly easy, surface stuff. But if editors and publishers really want to become more diverse and reflective of 21st Century reality, they're going to have to change the way their organizations approach the work itself. Changes like:

  • Having some non-white, non-WASPy names on your masthead or staff list. Yes, we do read these. Yes, we are turned off when we don't see any names like ours. Yes, I'm much more likely to send a story to a market with an editor of color or a woman editor first (although there are so few of these that I've learned not be picky.) And if a market's guidelines don't say anything about multiculturalism, but do say stuff about "no genre" and "high quality" (both euphemisms for New Yorker-style Carverism,) all the masthead names sound white, and all the author names on the website are or sound white, I'm probably not going to bother to submit to you at all.
  • Having a diverse editorial board or a diverse set of guest editors. Aside from the above issue, they'll make an effort to reach out to their communities if they understand that that's their job (no, you can't just tokenize an editor and watch her go. If your mag isn't diverse, she'll often just assume you only want white male writers and do her job that way.)
  • If you're successful in all this, your volume of submissions should increase. Go to ethnic and gender studies departments at your local universities and pick up an extra, slush-reading intern there. Put the intern's name on the masthead. Let your intern know that their expertise in ethnic/gender studies is needed and they should point out any boneheadedness in editorial decisions if they see it.
  • Having an editorial mission statement and a strategic or business plan whose language fundamentally reflects a deep commitment to diversity.
  • Being advocated for in the community by a diverse set of respected writers. (Yes, when one of us has been published by a market, we DO immediately go out and tell our peeps to submit there. When one of our respected leaders tells us this stuff, we particularly prick up our ears. And when an editor buttonholes one of us and says "How do I get [your folks] to submit to [my magazine/house]?" without sticking their feet in their mouths, we do go straight to Facebook and post a link.)
  • Having a "usual round" of in-person visits to open mics, reading series, classrooms, etc that are in diverse communities, so you're "touching" minority writers all the time.
  • When you request work from big name writers, hit up women writers and poc as often as you can. This is not to fill out your minority quota with big names, but rather to use the big names to entice emerging marginalized writers to submit to you.
  • Be constantly reading marginalized writers. Duh.
  • This is whole 'nother blog post, but start actively (and savvily) marketing your books/magazines to marginalized communities. It's a cycle: if they're reading it, they'll want to submit to it. If they're being published in it, they'll want to read it. Rinse, repeat.
Yeah, as I've said before, it's a lot of work. And you do have to change the way you do that work in the first place. But if you want actual diversity and not just lip service and real frustration, this is where you start.

February 15, 2010

My First Review!

Squeeeeeeeeeee!!!

February 14, 2010

Reading Update

If You Come Softly by Jacqueline Woodson

Meh. It's a somewhat charming interracial love story, but the book is essentially the first quarter of a love story with a sudden ending tacked upon the end. I can't get involved in a love story in which the star-crossed teens have only known each other for 2 or 3 months and haven't even met each others' families yet. The "problems" they have with race are fairly superficial: they get stared at, little old ladies ask the white girl if "she's okay" when she's walking with her black boyfriend, her (gay) sister reacts badly to the news, etc.

It's all surface stuff, not the real problems of interracial relationships, which also can start immediately, but go much deeper. Stuff like differing family cultures and trying to figure out if your families are just different kinds of families or if the differences have to do with race and ethnicity, and when each one applies and when it's a combination of both. Stuff like differing values based upon your differing (racially based) experiences of the world, and when you're creating a united front as a couple, which set of values do you apply -- which is appropriate? What are your new, combined values? When and how to start and stop talking about race when it's just the two of you alone. What roles each of you takes when racial incidents occur with family, friends, and strangers. The heartbreak of when some of your closest friends and/or family members simply can't become comfortable with your partner and you suspect it's primarily about race. How to negotiate not just a gender power differential (when you're talking about het relationships) but then to add in a (sometimes shifting) racial power differential. What language/s to use (be this issue about dialects or about different national languages in international relationships) and how not to use language as a power play. Etc. etc.

This is the stuff that makes interracial relationships interesting in narrative ... or would make them interesting in narrative if we ever got to see it. I don't understand this ... trend? Common mistake? Just like Flygirl, which I read in January, it's a well-written, promising story that ends right before things get interesting. Why?

February 13, 2010

Check In And Reading Update

Hey all, so I've been neglecting this here blog recently and it's for a reason. That reason is the usual reason: I am bizzy. Just thought it needed to be said.

What I am working on: I'm doing some book publicity for a couple of indy publishers, and I'm teaching two classes. And I just got started working on da nobble again, sort of. And I just got over being sick for seven weeks. Argh.

Anyway.

Continuing my YA binge, I just read:

Tamora Pierce's Melting Stones

Robin McKinley's Dragonhaven

Melting Stones was weird. The book is a standalone from the "Circle of Magic" world and character set, featuring Evvy, Briar's student, and Rosethorn. And it's in first person from Evvy's pov. In the story Evvy and Rosethorn keep referring to a war that the three of them experienced between Street Magic and Will of the Empress (actually, Will of the Empress happens at the same time that Melting Stones does,) and the references are made in the text very much the way a sequel refers to the events in a previous book. But I don't see the book listed anywhere in Pierce's bibliography. Did she write it and decide not to publish it? Was it written in a non-book form? Or was the book maybe outlined but never written? Or maybe Pierce has started getting all sophisticated and is telling stories indirectly now, in this manner?

Otherwise, the book continues Pierce's trajectory into making the mages' magic absolutely unstoppable and disobedient to any laws. Which isn't very interesting. Young mage goes with her teacher to a volcanic island that's about to go volcanic again and diverts the volcano spirits. Yeah.

Dragonhaven is the first McKinley book I've read and it was wonderful. Kid growing up in a national park which is one of the last preserves of dragons in the world discovers a dying dragon who was killed by -- and has killed in turn -- a poacher. The dragon just gave birth and the kid has to raise the baby dragon himself, thereby discovering how to communicate with dragons. The book was awesome and unexpected, with few scenes of typical dragon adventure and derring do. It's more a first-contact type of story, with a bit of hardcore William's Doll thrown in. (Although the boy, who's the first person narrator, calls his parental feelings "maternal" rather than "paternal," which made me tear my hair out.)

One downside, but a pretty big one: the first person narrator is a teenaged boy, although an older teenager, and McKinley has him tell the story in a pretty authentic voice, not knowing where to start a story, and breaking in with interminable parenthetical statements, and doubling back, and taking twice as long to get to the point as he needs to, and not being linear. This is great ... until it isn't. Thing is, a little of this goes a long way, and instead we get a LOT of it, which doesn't go nearly as far. Occasionally, McKinley knows to pack it in and just move forward with the narrative, but then she seems to forget, and starts getting wordy and parenthetical again at high-tension moments and ... by halfway through the book I had figured out which parts to skip and was just plain skipping them. And the experience wasn't any different in the second half than in the first except that it was less frustrating. That can't be good.

Otherwise, a great read, though.

February 06, 2010

Reading Update

Super busy right now, with no opinions on anything to report. Spending late-night unwind hours re-reading YA.

Tamora Pierce's Song of the Lioness quartet, which I first read about ten years ago (wow!):

  1. Alanna: The First Adventure
  2. In the Hand of the Goddess
  3. The Woman Who Rides Like a Man
  4. Lioness Rampant

And Lois Duncan's A Gift of Magic, which I read (and loved) as a kid. One of the great things about Duncan and other seventies YA masters is the way they snuck some real complexity into the family situations. The (more or less) protagonist of the book isn't always a terribly likeable character. She's both unbearably selfish, and understandably so.

I didn't really notice this back then, but in re-reading a lot of these books now, I'm noticing that the books I loved the best were inevitably the ones with the best writing (in my adult judgment.) Kids are very forgiving of bad writing, but still do appreciate good writing. Something I wish more writers for young readers would keep in mind.

Join My Mailing List!