Saying My Country Right or Wrong is like saying My Mother Drunk or Sober ...

I keep reading on the whole Connie Willis and Harlan thing (And the lesser side waves of rachelmanija's similar but less public encounter with Harlan) going through SF fandom, and, coming back fresh from a (not incidentally pretty darn good) event), I found myself observing a few things about how the incident is being used and abused.

Let's see.

The twice and probably more often perpetrator has a long history -- a very long and very well known history -- of not one but ALL of the above:
- Works of genius and inspiration which have become not only pieces of community history, but influenced the shape and scope of the entire community in the past.
- An exceedingly rigorous code of honour and a willingness to call BS when he sees it in others.
- Fighting for standards he claims to believe in that have resulted in real changes to laws or rules -- fighting still sometimes present, but growing tired.
- Deeply offensive personal behaviour, including but not limited to amusing himself at the expense of others, belittling others who've done nothing to him, driving same to the point of tears or causing them to leave the community in bitterness, deliberately stealing the spotlight from others ostensibly his equal when it should be their turn, and apparantly disregarding several standards demanded of others -- particularly sexist behaviour, including some mild forms of wrongful touching.
- The inability to see the last actually violates his code of honour as stated and used on others (after all, if he saw the connection, he would stop and atone in earnest. That code of honour is for real, or seems to be.)

A lot of the discussion as to why Harlan should do this has centred around the admission that Fandom pretty much created the beast, by saying "That's just Harlan." every other time he did something asinine, and saying nothing else. The behaviour this time went beyond the pale, but was predicted in all the past things he's gotten away with.

But then the question was raised: fandom isn't a single amorphous mass with a single equal history. Why should Rachel, who wasn't there when Harlan's fans let him do as he willed, have to pay now? Why should new people into fandom have to feel they need to let olders and betters get away with this?

And if elders keep tolerating this behaviour, how can the next generation, looking on this venerated one, ever learn to do better, to separate the wheat of his good from the chaff of his bad?

His history and genius were raised. He's a guiding light and inspiration, and has done so much.

Except his genius was about his stories, an entirely different thing from a roaming hand. His battles were about rights under the law, not about driving a raw sixteen year old to tears.

Harlan crossed the line; I'm of the opinion no convention should invite him in as a guest or let him sit on panels.

But now, at the end, we come to the crux. Because, as pnh notes later, it's not about Harlan. The real question isn't what can we do about a man too old to change, and unlikely to want to. Harlan won't become anyone new.

But those who admire his works are younger, brighter, more flexible. They can learn. They can change. It's not about him, it's about the fact that a wrong thing was done, and the rules about what is wrong shouldn't change for beautiful shocking stories. We can make a gesture to let people know that even the heroes of the people can cross the line.

On the SCA, our own Baron Thrym has made a point of pointing out to his younger newer followers that there are things to be wary of; there are people who were made knights in the SCA who ended up on death row. There have been 'tin hats' who've done sexual assault or hurt people too dazzled by the fact that they have all the crowns and awards of the Society and its ostensible code of chivalry, and didn't see the warning signs of real world danger.

What he didn't say is there are lesser dangers, too; a hand on a bra can be part of silliness between forewarned and consenting friends, or a really creepy disturbing act perpetrated in public. Or both, should the wrong person join the fun uninvited. I've seen blistering, withering words pass between two tough characters as camaraderie -- and as truly hurtful and wholly public denigration. I've seen someone put down his equal for no better reason than it kept him the centre of attention, because the quip made people laugh before they knew it hurt.

And I've seen them pass because the person who said it was honoured. Respected. A hero of the past. "He's just like that."

Nobody should have to feel unwelcome in a group they were trying to make their second home just because someone else is asinine. Nobody should feel pressured to tolerate words or gestures just because the person who makes them has a name, and they're new and shy and not sure.

(Again, not this weekend -- but the juxtaposition of some conversations from this weekend with the worldcon discussion is bringing some things to mind.)

If it's not about Harlan, why speak up and say what Harlan did was wrong? Why denigrate Harlan's behaviour if it isn't about him? Why say he should be banned from conventions?

Because it's a way to point out what is wrong. It's a way to point out the line between consent and assault, even when the assault is a second's grope. It's a way to point out that line isn't defined by when she strikes back, or whether she can "handle herself" -- Connie and Rachel both could, in different ways, and in both cases, it was just as wrong as if they couldn't.

It's a way to stand up and say, "The rules of the community are these. They don't change. Learn them. Obey them. And if your elders fail -- you shoot your own dog before the rabies spreads."

Saying My Country Right or Wrong is like saying My Mother Drunk or Sober ...

I keep reading on the whole Connie Willis and Harlan thing (And the lesser side waves of rachelmanija's similar but less public encounter with Harlan) going through SF fandom, and, coming back fresh from a (not incidentally pretty darn good) event), I found myself observing a few things about how the incident is being used and abused.

Let's see.

The twice and probably more often perpetrator has a long history -- a very long and very well known history -- of not one but ALL of the above:
- Works of genius and inspiration which have become not only pieces of community history, but influenced the shape and scope of the entire community in the past.
- An exceedingly rigorous code of honour and a willingness to call BS when he sees it in others.
- Fighting for standards he claims to believe in that have resulted in real changes to laws or rules -- fighting still sometimes present, but growing tired.
- Deeply offensive personal behaviour, including but not limited to amusing himself at the expense of others, belittling others who've done nothing to him, driving same to the point of tears or causing them to leave the community in bitterness, deliberately stealing the spotlight from others ostensibly his equal when it should be their turn, and apparantly disregarding several standards demanded of others -- particularly sexist behaviour, including some mild forms of wrongful touching.
- The inability to see the last actually violates his code of honour as stated and used on others (after all, if he saw the connection, he would stop and atone in earnest. That code of honour is for real, or seems to be.)

A lot of the discussion as to why Harlan should do this has centred around the admission that Fandom pretty much created the beast, by saying "That's just Harlan." every other time he did something asinine, and saying nothing else. The behaviour this time went beyond the pale, but was predicted in all the past things he's gotten away with.

But then the question was raised: fandom isn't a single amorphous mass with a single equal history. Why should Rachel, who wasn't there when Harlan's fans let him do as he willed, have to pay now? Why should new people into fandom have to feel they need to let olders and betters get away with this?

And if elders keep tolerating this behaviour, how can the next generation, looking on this venerated one, ever learn to do better, to separate the wheat of his good from the chaff of his bad?

His history and genius were raised. He's a guiding light and inspiration, and has done so much.

Except his genius was about his stories, an entirely different thing from a roaming hand. His battles were about rights under the law, not about driving a raw sixteen year old to tears.

Harlan crossed the line; I'm of the opinion no convention should invite him in as a guest or let him sit on panels.

But now, at the end, we come to the crux. Because, as pnh notes later, it's not about Harlan. The real question isn't what can we do about a man too old to change, and unlikely to want to. Harlan won't become anyone new.

But those who admire his works are younger, brighter, more flexible. They can learn. They can change. It's not about him, it's about the fact that a wrong thing was done, and the rules about what is wrong shouldn't change for beautiful shocking stories. We can make a gesture to let people know that even the heroes of the people can cross the line.

On the SCA, our own Baron Thrym has made a point of pointing out to his younger newer followers that there are things to be wary of; there are people who were made knights in the SCA who ended up on death row. There have been 'tin hats' who've done sexual assault or hurt people too dazzled by the fact that they have all the crowns and awards of the Society and its ostensible code of chivalry, and didn't see the warning signs of real world danger.

What he didn't say is there are lesser dangers, too; a hand on a bra can be part of silliness between forewarned and consenting friends, or a really creepy disturbing act perpetrated in public. Or both, should the wrong person join the fun uninvited. I've seen blistering, withering words pass between two tough characters as camaraderie -- and as truly hurtful and wholly public denigration. I've seen someone put down his equal for no better reason than it kept him the centre of attention, because the quip made people laugh before they knew it hurt.

And I've seen them pass because the person who said it was honoured. Respected. A hero of the past. "He's just like that."

Nobody should have to feel unwelcome in a group they were trying to make their second home just because someone else is asinine. Nobody should feel pressured to tolerate words or gestures just because the person who makes them has a name, and they're new and shy and not sure.

(Again, not this weekend -- but the juxtaposition of some conversations from this weekend with the worldcon discussion is bringing some things to mind.)

If it's not about Harlan, why speak up and say what Harlan did was wrong? Why denigrate Harlan's behaviour if it isn't about him? Why say he should be banned from conventions?

Because it's a way to point out what is wrong. It's a way to point out the line between consent and assault, even when the assault is a second's grope. It's a way to point out that line isn't defined by when she strikes back, or whether she can "handle herself" -- Connie and Rachel both could, in different ways, and in both cases, it was just as wrong as if they couldn't.

It's a way to stand up and say, "The rules of the community are these. They don't change. Learn them. Obey them. And if your elders fail -- you shoot your own dog before the rabies spreads."