If there's one thing I love more than Science Fiction and
Fantasy, it's baseball. And one of the things I love about the sport is not
just the game itself—the content, so to speak—but the debates that surround it.
Who's better?
What stats matter more?
Who should win an award, and who should be in the Hall of
Fame?
Obviously there's controversy. Perception matters. A
player’s connection with reporters matter. Results matter (and yet, what those
results are usually up for debate, too).
The funny thing is: I don't think they actually are up
for debate. I think I'm right, I think if you disagree you're wrong, and I'm
going to back up my argument with the facts as I see them. I'll cite sources
and dismiss yours.
(For example, you'll never convince me that Miguel
Cabrera--despite the Triple Crown--was the MVP over Mike Trout, or that Jim
Rice is a Hall of Famer.)
And I love it. And, in the end, I still love baseball, no
matter how wrong you are about the sport.
Because it's fun, and it takes me away from regular life for a while,
and we all need something like that.
Clearly the parallels are imperfect, but I can't help
connect baseball with what we're currently seeing with the Hugos and the Sad
Puppies and the "Social Justice Warriors." Because, at the end of the day—despite all
the time, sweat, and money we have invested in it—we are part of this genre and
community because we love it...warts and all.
That, though, is where things get blurry. Because warts
are imperfections we can live with.
Cancers, though...
More on that in a minute.
First, though, I'll admit: I hadn't even heard of the
controversies until the Hugo shortlist came out. My initial reaction was
excitement—a book I acquired (Marko Kloos' LINES OF DEPARTURE, for 47North) was
nominated for best novel. This was a
first for me, and Marko is an author I think any fan of military SF should be
reading.
But then I was hearing it was tainted...and that got me
thinking about baseball.
Right now, there are two major issues that still come up
for baseball: steroids and gambling (a young pitcher on the Marlins is
currently being fined for betting, even if it wasn’t on baseball). For me, the
former is bad. Steroids can have serious health effects, and there's as purity
we like to believe about baseball that is marred with needles and clear creams
and pills. It's ugly, and it's about money, and it's sad to hear about favorite
players falling under suspicion (or worse, being suspended). There are rules,
and this is cheating.
And yet, I can't help feel it was part of the game. For
good or ill, players chose to do this to themselves, and they'll have to live
with that. And they might have hurt others by gaining an advantage (though,
knowing what we do about steroids, it can't actually make you better at
baseball. Rather, it enhances you're ability to build muscle mass and recover
from workouts quicker--still an advantage, but it doesn't change the fact that
you have to be good enough to hit a baseball or locate a 90 mile-per-hour
fastball in a relatively small box), I don't think their actions were so
reprehensible as to warrant complete exclusion from the game.
Gambling (in particular, betting on baseball), though, is
more than bad—it’s something I think has no place in the sport. It can have
serious repercussions that affect whole teams. It changes the fundamental
aspects of baseball, because it's no longer player versus player, but player
versus the line—versus money.
As such, I would have no problem including Barry Bonds or
Roger Clemens in the Hall of Fame, but I would never want to see Pete Rose
there.
For me, then, I can't say I like the stances of the
proponents of the platform (or the views of some of those nominated), yet I can’t
find a reason to actually fault what they did (the action, not the reason). As many have pointed out, the Hugo Awards (as
well as the Nebulas and any other voted on award—think All-Star games to bring
it back to baseball) are flawed, and this group exploited that system. It happens, and obviously we should be
thinking about how to fix it (if we even care at this point).
But what we should never tolerate is any group that
advocates specificity harmful actions to others in the community. A jerk by
himself hurts himself—don't buy his book. But a jerk that espouses violence,
such as members of GamerGate—the Sad Puppies staunch foot soldiers, apparently—then
that's something worth noting.
Because the fact is, they are bad for the game. Threats and
direct derogatory commentary not only shouldn't be tolerated, they CAN'T be
tolerated. Just as you can’t yell “Fire”
in crowded theater (or baseball stadium), you aren’t protected if your views
are threatening or abusive. Yes, you are entitled to your opinions, but it
doesn’t mean your opinions are allowed to impinge on the safety of others.
The funny thing is—for the most part, I see this as a
steroid problem. This is something we
certainly don’t like seeing, but people saw an opportunity and took it—I can’t
fault them that. But to then have a
slate that seems to be okay with homophobia and racism and sexism…how is that
okay? And perhaps another baseball
analogy will help:
Where would the game be without Jackie Robinson?
The world is evolving, and science fiction and fantasy
has always been on the forefront of that. I’ve always been excited to see us
pushing the boundaries and debate forward. I would hope we could do so
amicably, with the idea that in the end, it’s the stories that really define
this genre, just as the games define baseball.
The personalities are intriguing, sure, but we need not define ourselves
simply by ourselves. Let’s enjoy the content, let’s debate the situation around
it, and let’s keep it amicable. Because at the end of the day, the Red Sox are
still going to be there, and I have to live with that…as long as they don’t
start threatening my family.
*Awkward analogy: Ended*
A reminder: Kloos and Butcher and Anderson didn't ask to be on the Sad Puppy slate. Read these really good books and then decide. Don't just "No Award" because they showed up with no affiliation to the group.
Links:
Breitbart (pro-Sad Puppy commentary): http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/04/hugo-awards-nominations-swept-by-anti-sjw-anti-authoritarian-authors/
Larry Correia (Sad Puppy founder reaction): http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/06/a-letter-to-the-smofs-moderates-and-fence-sitters-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/
Pornokitsch (Justin Landon reaction): http://www.pornokitsch.com/2015/04/justin-landon-on-the-hugo-awards-an-entity-at-war-with-itself-.html
Whatever (John Scalzi reaction): http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/04/04/a-note-about-the-hugo-nominations-this-year/
