Additional thoughts on Sandersgate

[megwrites]

jenwrites makes a good point about whole William Sanders controversy.

I hope that people are smart enough to recognize that what Sanders said, vile as it is, is not the responsibility of the authors or other editors at Helix. Yes, I'd like to see him removed from his post or at least made to give a public apology. And yes, I do plan to stay away from Helix so long as he is associated with it.

But the authors who've been printed in Helix had no control over what he said. They shouldn't have to bear the weight of the consequences of his vitriolic racism.

Realistically, what could they have been expected to do? Make sure that everyone who works for Helix is a really nice person? Take a survey? Sit down and interview prospective editors? I'm sure most of them are just as horrified by what Sanders said as the rest of us. And I don't see how any of this is the fault of someone who got published in Helix. How were they to know that a few months or a year down the line that Sanders would say something so outrageous?

Despite this fact, they are, however, are in a fairly precarious professional position. For one, a writing credit on their resume that once meant something might stand to become useless, all because of one hateful idiot, and because they're getting branded by this and being associated with something bad that they have absolutely no control over.

Yes, it's very angry making, but let's try to make sure we don't lose focus. And the focus is that one person, William Sanders, had complete control over what went into that rejection letter. Therefore, only he should have to pay for it.


ETA: Let's be clear that I am referring to those authors who were published in Helix before the rejection letter was published and started becoming widely talked about. Let's also be clear that I'm giving a pass to those authors who had/have no idea of what kind of person Sanders is.

ETA 2: I think some discussion in all this should be given over to the question of how much responsibility an author carries for researching the publications they're submitting to, and what kind of information they can actually rely on in such research.

Yes, people have said that Sanders has been known for this type of behavior/attitude for a while, and that this is not his first time being this offensive.

This may be entirely true, *but* consider for a moment where I'm getting this information. So far, it's from word-of-mouth sources. Given, it's from people I trust, but what if it wasn't? What if a complete stranger came to this blog and saw the comments?

Is an author obligated to shun a certain publication because someone they don't know on the internet said, "Oh, he's a racist, he does this, this, and this". What kind of standard of information should be used?

As for Sanders, I think the proof is most definitely in the pudding. There is a letter, confirmed by Sanders to be his and *defended* by him, circulating around. And yes, I would hope that those who have seen it will immediately stop working with Helix.

But what about six months from now or a year? Is an author obligated to scour the blogosphere, searching out any hint of impropriety? And are they obligated to research *all* the editors and employees of a certain publication?

I mean, there *are* other editors at Helix. What if planned on submitting to, say, their poetry editor - are you obligated to make sure all the other people listed on the staff page have never done anything bad?

My point is this: saying ugly things and condemning those who have published with Helix in the past isn't really helping anything, and it's not fair.

As for those who will publish in the future, assuming they know about this (you know, not everyone is an internet addict, and last I checked, this sort of thing wasn't in the newspaper or anything), it's up to their individual consciences. While I would hope they would take a stance against Sanders' racism, I'm not going to assume that being published with Helix means they are also racist and that they support racism.

Comments

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I can understand the discomfort of folks who find themselves in an awkward position here--I have a buddy or two among them--but I have to ask...has anyone actually said anything indicating that they do blame the Helix authors in general for having placed stories there? I haven't seen any such comments, but I'm not actively following every thread out there on this particular firestorm.

For my part, I don't expect anybody to research the secret thoughts of everyone involved with a magazine to which they might submit. That would seem to be setting the bar a little high. *g* The Helix problem is a little unusual in that this is _not_ the first time Sanders has done or said something similar (or indeed, used this particular slur and been called out for it). But it's certainly possible that someone might have missed earlier go-rounds if they're not obsessively following this kind of thing online. (And if they're not, they're probably far saner than the rest of us!)

The point at which something like this becomes an issue for the writer is, to my eye, the point at which the writer becomes aware that it's happening. It's one thing to honestly not know your editor is up to these shenanigans, another thing to be aware and decide to continue supporting them anyway. The second thing, I should say, isn't necessarily a bad or wrong choice. It's not a choice that I'd make (and a choice that I've not made more than once), but I don't automatically tar somebody with the bad-person brush if they make it for themselves.

But that's the ethical question, I think. Now that (general) you know, what are you going to do?

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen any such comments, but I'm not actively following every thread out there on this particular firestorm.

I've seen plenty of comments about how people who sub to Helix must support Sanders, because apparently his behavior is so well known to everyone. Which, by the by, I'm kind of wondering what the definition of "well known" is, and how exactly we're supposed to know if something is common knowledge.

The SF/F genre tends to be cliquish in some ways, so things that might seem common knowledge among one circle of readers/writers/editors/bloggers is news to another group of people. Especially if they're new to the game.

But that's the ethical question, I think. Now that (general) you know, what are you going to do?

I think a lot of writers and readers will stop having anything to do with Helix, and while I think it's more important for readers to withdraw their patronage than writers (let's face it, there's not going to be a shortage of writers desperate for publication any time soon), I also don't want to hold it against someone, even if they're aware of this hulaballoo, for subbing. Especially if they're subbing to another editor, for instance.

Writing professionally is hard enough, and I'm not going to say "you're a bad person, I'm blacklisting you forever!" if someone is desperate and needs the money and the publishing credits. It's nothing I'd ever do, but that's very easy for me to say. Especially since I'm not really a short fiction writer to begin with. So it's not like I'm making a giant career sacrifice by deciding to boycott Helix.

I just don't think subbing to Helix should necessarily be equating with supporting the editors views.

I just keep thinking of those people who submitted poetry, and ended up working with their poetry editor (who I haven't heard anything bad about and a couple of people have said he's really nice). Should they be penalized because another editor in another section of Helix went off the rails? Should they have to eliminate an SF poetry market for that?

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I've seen plenty of comments about how people who sub to Helix must support Sanders, because apparently his behavior is so well known to everyone.

Ah, interesting. I haven't seen anything like that; that's too bad. I do think it's not unreasonable to expect people who sub to Helix to have some sense of these kerfluffles at this point, since the 'zine itself is online and the previous ones took place in its own newsgroup, but...some folks don't pay too much attention to the blogoverse (and honestly, good for them, to some extent).

As editors go...the fact that Sanders is the senior editor--the guy in charge--here is a qualitatively different situation, to my eye, than it would be if he were merely the fiction editor, because you kind of _can't_ opt out of his department and still be involved in Helix: Helix as an entity is basically his show. I wouldn't say that they should "have" to do anything and I wouldn't tar writers who submit to Helix with the same brush I'm willing to use on Sanders, but--I do think there's a company-you-keep element to all of this. If you (general "you") know about the hullaboo and if you're not bothered by participating in a show that this guy runs, I do have a hard time seeing that as not reflecting in some way on you.

[affinity8.livejournal.com]

This is not especially new behavior for Sanders, as other people have pointed out. Years ago I decided he was too crazy to be involved with.

The writers at Helix, however prepared or unprepared they might have been for this, have a choice to make now. Continue to stand by him, or take a stand against bigotry and craziness by pulling their stories from his archives. We are defined in part by the company we keep and our actions speak louder than words. I applaud nojojojo for her stand.

Standing up against bigotry may come at a cost, but the alternative is, for many of us, worse.

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

This is not especially new behavior for Sanders, as other people have pointed out. Years ago I decided he was too crazy to be involved with.

With all due respect, there may be some people who are new to the game, or just haven't run in the right circles to have known anything about Sanders besides his one paragraph biography on the Helix site.

I'm very wary of making the assumption that anyone who submitted knew about Sanders and was aware of what he's done. Proving knowledge is always a tricky proposition.

The writers at Helix, however prepared or unprepared they might have been for this, have a choice to make now.

I agree. I think everyone is being confronted by ethical issues on this, and I think that people do have to decide if they believe that keeping their stories with Helix or subbing to Helix means they're in support of Sanders and his actions.

But I also believe that blacklisting writers because they associate with the magazine is not the answer to this. I think, honestly, putting pressure on people not to read or donate to Helix will be 1000x more effective than hurting writers. If money and readership dries up, then Sanders will really feel the impact of his words and actions.

I suppose there's a part of me that really dislikes the inherent unfairness of forcing writers to make tough choices and make sacrifices because Sanders lost his mind and went berserk, especially when some of those writers are friends of mine.

[affinity8.livejournal.com]

It doesn't matter, in the end, whether someone knew ahead of time that Sanders was nuts. They know it now. And they can be reasonably certain this behavior will happen again. Choose to associate with him, or don't. It's not a hard choice, and it's not an especially unfair one. We all live by the choices we make.

Thank you

[specficrider.livejournal.com]

Thank you. My first story with Helix was published a handful days before all this blew up, and I had absolutely no idea of the editor's politics before I submitted (the first story I subbed is also the one up right now). I do not really participate in the blogosphere, and I wouldn't even have known what was going on if another contributor hadn't written me. I was stunned and amazed by the rumor that people were calling for a boycott of the *writers* appearing in Helix. It is such a relief to hear a voice of reason among all the wide-spread laying of blame.

While I do not condone the words of A Certain Editor, I signed a contract. I will not be submitting to Helix again, but I can't understand that some people think I should be punished for submitting to a market that on the surface was edgy and interesting and seemed exactly the right market for one of my stories. Unfortunately, background checks for editors is not one of my normal marketing procedures. But if I had to start doing that, I might as well chuck it.

Thank you again,
Ruth Nestvold

Re: Thank you

[fiction-theory.livejournal.com]

You were pretty much what I was talking when I meant authors who didn't know. I think there's been an assumption made by a lot of people that news about this is going to spread around and everyone's going to hear about it.

It isn't like there's a news publication or a centralized source of news that we can reasonably everyone accesses. It'd be one thing if this had been aired on CNN or something, but I don't think that because a bunch of bloggers have written it up makes it headline news. Nor do I think less of anyone who, for whatever reason, hasn't caught onto the scandal yet.

Unfortunately, background checks for editors is not one of my normal marketing procedures.

Precisely. And I don't think that it's reasonable to ask a writer to go and do detective work on the editors when it's enough, sometimes, just to find a publication that's in and of itself professional and acceptable.

Plus, like I said, there's no centralized news source. When we all quit posting about this in a few months (well, weeks given the blogosphere's notoriously short attention span), how is an author supposed to know about it?

I think our energies are all better spent a) getting the word out about Helix/Sanders, and not just through internet channels and b) making sure to place blame squarely where it belongs, and that's with Sanders. He, and he alone, is responsible for this. He certainly doesn't mind owning up to what he did and even being proud of it, so I certainly see no reason for anyone else to get smeared unless they openly say that they truly support Sanders' statements and his racism.

Guilt by association whether in the blogosphere or elsewhere just doesn't work out very well.