netmouse | On E. Moon and Wiscon

The group that runs Wiscon has announced that they've rescinded their invitation to Elizabeth Moon to be a Guest of Honor next year.

For those who've missed it, a general outcry for the removal of Moon as guest arose among many Wiscon regulars after she made this post: http://e-moon60.livejournal.com/335480.html and then failed to respond to most of the comments identifying inaccuracies and problematic implications in her statements about the Manhattan community center proposal, Islam, immigrants, and conformity. Many were willing to engage with her about it, however, until she deleted all the comments on her post and froze it with a disparaging coda (see discussion at http://community.livejournal.com/wiscon/284008.html for instance). Meantime, screen captures of many of the comments exist (see http://maevele.livejournal.com/335158.html) though many of the most poignant comments were made on the personal blogs of fans of color - DeepaD did a roundup of some of those at http://deepad.dreamwidth.org/57932.html.

The initial response of the conchairs, http://wiscon.info/downloads/W35eCube3.html, indicated they did not intended to rescind their invitation to Moon, but today a terse announcement indicated that "SF3, the parent organization of WisCon, has withdrawn the invitation to Elizabeth Moon to attend WisCon35 as a guest of honor".

I followed this some as it was happening, though I didn't find time right away to visit the comments thread on Moon's blog. I read Will Shetterly's collection of her responses to him at http://racefail.blogspot.com/2010/09/mixed-feelings-about-elizabeth-moons.html, appreciated Jim Hines' post at http://www.jimchines.com/2010/09/open-letter-to-elizabeth-moon/ and read N.K Jemisin's posts at http://nojojojo.livejournal.com/221241.html, http://nojojojo.livejournal.com/221476.html and http://nojojojo.livejournal.com/223115.html.

On the last post I linked to by Jemisin,

vito_excalibur commented, "I am not hearing any real arguments for why to keep Moon as GoH, and so there's this weird effect where it seems like there's a consensus that the right thing to do is uninvite her...and that doesn't happen." That crystallized some thoughts of mine that I put in a comment, which triggered a discussion Nora and others pointed out was off-topic to her post, so I said I would try to post here about it soon. It took me a couple days (newborn baby keeps me off the computer, plus I wanted to catch up reading the captured screenshots), but this is that post - anyone who wants to respond to what I said, or to what others said in response to me, please do it here.

After further reading, I understand more about why Moon's mainly religiously bigoted post has strong racist tendencies - characterizing American Muslims as immigrants, and pushing for the "normalization" of the Different (which many argue could never go far enough, since skin color can not be erased, and Unreasonable people will still be Unreasonable and one should not kowtow to them) as a prudent path of action.

Jane Irwin has also made a good post, with more links, at http://www.vogelein.com/JanerBlog/racefail/
I've not yet found time to read all those links, but encourage those who would comment to go do so first.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'll put it like this: I'm not sure how much post-controversy editing Moon may have engaged in, but considering that James P. Hogan was a GoH at Capricon despite his wacko beliefs (beliefs I only found out about after the con), I'll admit that I have somewhat mixed sentiments on this. Granted, what she wrote - and the way she responded - is suspect, but is it any *less* suspect than someone who trumpeted everything from the truth of Velikovsky's woo physics to the actual *lionization* of neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel as a "hero" on his web site?

WisCon had every right to make their decision, but I'll have to look at this more closely before I either agree or disagree with it.

I think perhaps you meant "is it any *more* suspect"?

re: post-controversy editing, her original post is unchanged, she just deleted the comments and added the note at the very bottom.

I fail to find "some other convention chose to honor someone who espoused even worse beliefs" a convincing argument for why this convention should not do what it is doing. I think there are valid arguments against it, but that is not one of them.

Edited 2010-10-22 13:14 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that I wrote that way too quickly ("less" for "more", etc.) for my liking, but you're missing my point.

I *agree* that WisCon had every right to launch Moon from GoH status since they also have every right to reconsider a author's stated opinions and decide whether they would jibe with what how they present themselves as a con (frex, I can't imagine a con emphasizing peace studies inviting, say, Tom Kratman as a GoH). That being said, after looking at the section concerning Muslims a second time I came to the conclusion that Moon is pouring more gas on the fire (intentionally or otherwise) and that my comparison to Hogan is still valid; the point I'm trying to make is that Moon's beliefs on this subject are dubious, but so were Hogan's and they didn't stop *him* from being a Capricon GoH. It's just that Wiscon knew what Moon wrote ahead of time; I'm not sure that Capricon was particularly aware of Hogan's wackier beliefs before they invited him (I certainly wasn't), so I admit that the two situations aren't entirely analogous.

In short, no "some other convention" comparisons need apply; it's just that some cons tend to be more cautious in their GoH invites than others. That's their right.

It's just that Wiscon knew what Moon wrote ahead of time

Moon wrote her September screed many month after Wiscon invited her to be GoH. Last I knew they could not have known about it ahead of time unless they were possessed of a time machine.

Or was something else she wrote indicative of these attitudes?

You wrote

>Moon wrote her September screed many month after Wiscon >invited her to be GoH.

Ah, but they withdrew GoH status *before the actual convention*, which is what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

>Or was something else she wrote indicative of these >attitudes?

Your guess is as good as mine. I guess I'll have to head over to John Scalzi's page to see what he thinks about this.

Arrrrrgh. Is this thread actually *causing* me to brain-fart all over the damn place?

Apparently, I half-remember the "racefail" from Jane Irwin's page and drew the false conclusion that it was a link to John Scalzi's page.

My w0rk mak3s m3 bra1n f33l funNy...

Actually, since I used to be Director, Rule of Law, for the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute at Carlisle Barracks, I could see them asking. I just couldn't see me accepting.

best,

Tom Kratman

On E. Moon and Wiscon

Another example from another convention

Re: Another example from another convention

Re: Another example from another convention

Re: Another example from another convention

Re: Another example from another convention

Another example of Writing Too Damn Fast

Re: Another example from another convention