115

Our Villains, Ourselves: On SF, Villainy, and... Margaret Atwood?

Greg Bechtel* favourite villains and what a closer exami- nation of those love/hate relationships may As a writer, scholar, reader, and reveal. Take me, for example. I take great fan of SF—that’s pronounced ess-eff, but pleasure in hating a long list of real-world more on that in a bit—I tend to dislike psy- villains and villainous enterprises: the Big choanalytic approaches to the speculative Banks, climate-change deniers, Stephen genres. In particular, I sometimes fnd my- Harper, Neo-conservatives, Neo-liberalism, self bridling at how psychoanalytic uses of Fox News, Sun Media, and the list goes on. the word “fantasy” can reduce the complex I also love my favourite SF villains, and I aesthetic and political mechanisms of the am not entirely immune to projecting these entire fantasy genre (a subset of ess-eff, in SF villains onto the real world. Senator Pal- my usage) to mere projections of repressed patine as George W. Bush? Sure, why not. anxieties (on the one hand) or expressions Though as a Canadian having lived through of romantic and “irrational” escapism ten years of Conservative government, I’d (on the other).1 What can I say? We folks be more prone to projecting him onto Ste- who take SF seriously on (and in) its own phen Harper. As Christopher points out, terms can get a bit testy about that sort of such projections can even be weirdly com- thing. And yet, David Christopher’s ex- forting, allowing me to imagine George amination of the Star Wars prequels—and Dubyah or Stephen Harper as far more in- their villains—does provoke me to think telligent than reality would seem to bear about just how much we love to hate our out, brilliant Dark Lords manipulating and

*Greg Bechtel completed his Ph.D in contemporary Canadian fantasy, and his frst story collection, Boundary Problems, won the Alberta Book of the Year Award for trade fction and was a fnalist for the ReLit Award, the Crawford Award, and the Robert Kroetsch City of Edmonton Book Prize. For more information, see his website at gregbechtel.ca.

Scum & Villainy 116 Te Word Hoard Our Villains, Ourselves

magnifying the faws of an “essentially” But wait. Slow down. Deep breath. good system (that is, liberal democracy) Some context. to achieve their own desired ends. But I don’t mean to say that Margaret I digress. Atwood is a science fctional villain. How- My long list of favourite SF villains ever, she has at times—and, I would argue, includes everyone from Darth Vader (of with some justifcation—come off as a vil- course) to Wilson Fisk (Daredevil), from lain of (and within, and towards) the sci- Severian (The Book of the New Sun) to ence fction genre. A few years back, Mar- Number One (Battlestar Galactica), from garet Atwood created a serious kerfuffe in Magneto (X-Men) to Kilgrave (Jessica SF circles. It may have started when The Jones), and from Mrs. Coulter (His Dark Handmaid’s Tale won the inaugural Arthur Materials) to… Margaret Atwood. Marga- C. Clarke award for science fction in 1987. ret Atwood? Oh yes, most defnitely. In fact, Atwood, however, claimed that the novel Margaret Atwood may be my favourite SF wasn’t science fction but speculative fc- villain of them all. I like my villains com- tion, since she “defne[d] science fction as plex, conficted, and clearly “evil” in their fction in which things happen that are not actions but never purely, entirely, or irre- possible today – that depend, for instance, deemably so. I like the way that certain mo- on advanced space travel, time travel, the ments of (potential) identifcation—when I discovery of green monsters on other plan- fnd myself almost agreeing with the vil- ets or galaxies, or which contain various lain’s perspective—can heighten the under- technologies that we have not yet devel- lying shiver of evil. And Atwood’s clearly oped” (“Writing” 102). Speculative fction, got the evil-actions part down pat. The way by contrast, was about possible worlds she used her power and ubiquity as a liter- rather than impossible ones. But things re- ary icon to march King-Kong-like2 into the ally heated up in 2003, when Atwood re- SF sandbox, gleefully kicking sand in the peatedly insisted that her new novel, Oryx face of the ninety-eight-pound nerdlings and Crake, was “a speculative fction, there who had the audacity to claim her as not a science fction proper,” because “[i] one of their own while she insisted that her t contain[ed] no intergalactic space travel, own work was “speculative fction” about no teleportation, no Martians,” and most near-future possible worlds, which could certainly no “talking squids in outer space” obviously be framed in clear contradistinc- (qtd. in Langford). tion to the impossible bug-eyed-monsters- Suffce it to say, reactions from the zap-guns-and-spaceships tropes of escap- SF community were less than positive. ist, anti-realistic “science fction.” Many believed that Atwood was merely

Issue 5, 2016 Bechtel 117 protecting her brand as a “literary” writer, contemporary SF about the near future ... not wanting to scare off those of her read- [W]hat Atwood is in fact writing is sci-f ers who wouldn’t be caught dead reading about the near future as envisioned by Hol- something so lowbrow as SF. As Gary K. lywood” (“Croaked” 74).4 Wolfe put it (more charitably than many), Meanwhile and for decades, sig- “She’s not demeaning the SF market so nifcant portions of the international SF much as protecting the Atwood market” community—including and especially the (qtd. in Clute, “Croaked” 72). From an Canadian SF community—had been not SF perspective, Atwood’s strategy seemed only avoiding precisely such restrictive to play into the colloquially sharp distinc- defnitions as Atwood had single-handedly tion between “genre” and “literary” fction, imposed upon “science fction” but also whereby genre fction is lowbrow, fuffy, es- using “speculative fction” as an umbrella capist entertainment, while literary fction term to encompass a much broader range of is more serious, realistic, and sophisticated. speculative genres (including science fc- Such speculation seemed entirely plausible tion, fantasy, horror, magical realism, sur- to many SF readers and critics, especially realism, the new weird, and many more).5 given SF’s long history of perceiving it- Furthermore, within the SF community, self as a ghettoized and disrespected corner “science fction” was generally understood of the literary universe—as witnessed by to require some basis in plausible science Ursula K. Le Guin’s various essays lament- (e.g. Star Wars would not qualify), with the ing this fact3 or, in a different vein, Samuel sub-genre of “hard science fction” having Delaney’s reimagining of SF’s role as a the highest threshold of scientifc rigour. “paraliterary” form with the power to ac- Granted, these defnitions were (and are) complish what more stereotypically “lit- continually debated within the SF commu- erary” forms could not. Others, like John nity; however, whether out of ignorance or Clute, argued that Atwood was entirely malice, Atwood managed not only to get correct, in that Oryx and Crake’s clear ig- these terms’ existing usages wrong but to norance of contemporary SF made it either virtually reverse them. Thus, Atwood’s uni- very bad SF (e.g., outdated, clichéd, over- lateral redefnition of these terms seemed done, etc.) or not SF at all. Rather, as Clute not only dismissive of SF as a whole but puts it, “[b]alked by some seemingly unad- ignorant of how SF had been defning (and dressable refusal to do her homework in re-defning) itself in its creative and critical the ways the 21st century is actually being conversations for several decades. made storyable by writers who have gone The controversy came to a head to school, Atwood is of course not writing with Le Guin’s 2009 review of The Year

Scum & Villainy 118 Te Word Hoard Our Villains, Ourselves

of the Flood, in which she lamented that SF-centered frst-year literature classes— Atwood’s disavowal of the term “science it’s almost always an English major who fction” had forced her, out of respect for has read Atwood’s In Other Worlds—cites that disavowal, to “restrict [her]self to the Atwood’s defnition of “speculative fction” vocabulary and expectations suitable to a as an established fact rather than a disputed realistic novel, even if forced by those limi- term, a little part of me laughs silently (if tations into a less favourable stance” (“The a little bitterly) at the need to sidestep that Year” n.p.). This in turn led to a public dis- term if I want to avoid what is (in the end) cussion between the two authors in 2010, a rather silly debate. Certainly, I could give with each author explaining (among other the critical context, and the history of each things) her own usage of the term “sci- term, and so on.8 In some of my classes ence fction.”6 By Atwood’s later account, (those focussed specifcally on histories this seems to be the frst time she discov- of SF and SF criticism), I do. But most of ered that the two of them espoused entirely the time, that’s not the main thing I’m try- differing defnitions, such that “what [Le ing to teach, and it’s not something I care Guin] means by ‘science fction’ is specu- about all that much. Certainly not enough lative fction about things that really could to take on an imaginary proxy-debate with happen, whereas things that really could Margaret Atwood, whose star in the Cana- not happen [Le Guin] classifes under ‘fan- dian literary frmament—and therefore her tasy’” (“If it is” n.p.). As seen in Atwood’s ongoing power to dictate terms—certainly judicious use of quotation marks here, she isn’t going anywhere. But each time I make did not then—nor at any later time—back that accommodation, I give an ironic in- down from her own idiosyncratic defni- ternal salute to the incorrigible villain that tions. However, since that time, she has Atwood has become for me: my personal also acknowledged that other people—such SF nemesis. as Le Guin, who by all accounts is a long- Of course, like any villain, my SF- time friend of hers—may have differing infected version of “Margaret Atwood” is defnitions from her own. And thus ended largely imaginary. Indeed—and I realize the long-standing feud between Margaret I am here at risk of slipping into psycho- Atwood and the SF community. Sort of. analysis—I suspect Atwood’s villainy may And yet, like John Clute,7 I fnd stand in for certain recurring anxieties and/ myself unable to entirely undo my annoy- or fracture points within SF itself. Cer- ance with Atwood’s sustained recalcitrance tainly, SF writers, critics, readers, and fans on this particular point. And each time have been debating the question of pre- a precocious English major in one of my cisely what science fction is for decades—

Issue 5, 2016 Bechtel 119 but I don’t think that’s the main issue here. selves on the preceding history, conven- Rather, more recently, I’ve noticed a per- tions, central stories, and debates within the sistent and possibly growing annoyance genre. Another panellist cited Junot Diaz’s with “mainstream” (i.e., non-SF) writers The Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao who seem to be more and more commonly as a good example of an “outsider” (i.e., a poaching on SF territory. At the 2016 In- “literary” writer) who clearly knows what ternational Conference on the Fantastic in he’s talking about when it comes to SF cul- the Arts, this frustration surfaced in a panel ture and contexts while just as clearly re- discussion called “The Problem of Science specting those cultures and contexts.11 And Fiction Exceptionalism.”9 Having arrived all of this makes sense to me, especially late to the panel, I don’t know precisely the part about respect for that existing SF how that title related to the intended topic. conversation. Recall, for example, Clute’s However, I do know that the conversation frustration with Atwood’s “refusal to do her quite quickly came around to questions of homework,” and how Atwood’s implied (or genre-policing—whether it was in some perceived) disrespect for “science fction” ways necessary or useful and, if so, why. was precisely what got all those SF noses Ted Chiang (a consistently award- out of joint in the frst place. winning writer of virtuoso-level SF)10 sug- However, both panellists and audi- gested that if SF is an ongoing conversation ence members were quick to point out that among its many readers, writers, critics, and the need for those entering the SF conver- editors, the question becomes not so much sation to suffciently educate themselves one of policing genre as one of gauging before doing so raises several important each participant’s level of genuine engage- questions: How much education in the ment in that conversation (qtd. in Clarke). genre is suffcient? Is there a magical num- For example, it’s easy to imagine old ber (or list) of titles that any aspiring SF friends conversing at a party being annoyed writer needs to be familiar with? If there by a random stranger shoehorning himself is such a list, what works should be on it? into the conversation (I imagine this strang- And crucially, who gets to make that deci- er as a man, for some reason) and proceed- sion?12 Alyssa Wong (like Chiang, a prize- ing to mansplain a garbled version of their winning SF writer in her own right13 and own conversation back to them. Likewise, by far the youngest person on the panel), SF readers and writers may be annoyed by acknowledged that she had not had as much “outsiders” who simply insert themselves time—in the simple, mathematical sense of into the SF conversation without having age—to read the same number of canoni- “done their homework” and educated them- cal SF works as her co-panellists. Certain-

Scum & Villainy 120 Te Word Hoard Our Villains, Ourselves

ly, she did her best to do her research and overly liberal, “literary,” and social-justice- avoid reproducing tired SF tropes and story oriented writers (and writing) in the fan- ideas, but as a writer she also needed to based Hugo Awards.15 Or it could be seen write her own stories, emerging from her as two allied groups of “rabid chauvin- own particular (sub)cultural background ists… [and] raging white guys” manipulat- and infuences, whether SF or otherwise. ing faws in the Hugo Award nomination Interestingly, Wong—who has since be- process to subvert the system to their own come the frst Filipina writer not only to ends (Schneiderman). win a Nebula Award but also to win that But any way you slice it, none would award with, in her own words, “a queer dispute the basic facts, which are that two horror story” (“Hungry Daughters”)— groups, the “Sad Puppies” and “Rabid Pup- was not the one to raise the next corollary pies,” were unhappy with what they saw as question, which came from an audience the recent predominance of social-justice member: What about those who have been fction at the Hugo Awards—written by so- historically kept out of, erased from, or un- called “Social Justice Warriors,” or SJWs derrepresented within the genre? Do “we” for short 16—and had mobilized a member- (the SF community) have any responsibil- ship-drive to ensure that their preference of ity to welcome, accept, and actively invite works would dominate the ballot in 2015. diverse perspectives (and writers) into the Of these, the Sad Puppies were more mod- SF conversation? Could there be a danger erate, while the leader of the Rabid Puppies in over-policing SF genre borders with ar- (Theodore Beale, a.k.a. Vox Day) had— bitrary entrance requirements? and has—an unfortunate tendency to call It was probably just chance that himself the “Supreme Dark Lord of the the panel ran out of time before this last Evil Legion of Evil.” He has also famously question could be discussed in more depth. called award-winning SF author N. K. Je- Probably. But the spectre of another much misin an “ignorant half-savage” as part of fresher (and rawer) aspect of the ongoing a blog post where he argued that “Jemisin SF conversation had already entered the clearly does not understand that her dishon- room. News of the preceding year’s Hugo est call for ‘reconciliation’ and even more Award debacle had even spilled over into diversity within SF/F is tantamount to a mainstream press,14 a sort of airing of SF’s call for its decline into irrelevance” (Day dirty laundry. Depending who one asks, n.p.).17 These two groups’ purported mis- the 2015 Hugo Award controversy may be sion—to paraphrase a certain right-leaning seen as resulting from an organized pro- demagogue—was to Make Science Fic- test against the recent predominance of tion Great Again. And for a brief moment,

Issue 5, 2016 Bechtel 121 they seemed to have achieved their goals, villains—or those of my fellow SF-read- with Puppy-recommended works dominat- ing-and-writing tribe—reveal about us that ing the majority of the Hugo Awards fnal- we might rather not acknowledge? ist ballot. However, when the ballots were As you have no doubt gathered counted and the winners declared, all of the by now, SF and its various fans and fan- Puppy-backed works (except one) were de- doms—including and perhaps especially feated by “No Award.”18 And a collective myself—have a long history of carrying sigh of relief was heard throughout (much Great Big Chips on their (by which I mean of) the SF community. our) shoulders. There’s the lowbrow-high- So with all of this in mind, it seems brow Chip, which clearly plays into the SF easy to understand why a relatively good- community’s (and my) frustrations with natured panel discussion of “policing” the Margaret Atwood’s disavowal of “science SF genre might be derailed when questions fction.” But there’s also the whole nerdy- of diversity (or social justice) come up. geeky-outcast Chip, the outsider-ness that Like a longstanding family dispute between many of us associate (whether positively or ideologically irreconcilable positions, one negatively) with SF and SF fandoms. We might choose to avoid the topic in polite are the ones who often embrace the status (or uncertain) company. Certainly, it’s im- of the outsider, the fringe, the weird, the portant to those involved—and important scum at the bottom (or is it the top?) of the to talk about—but one doesn’t exactly want literary pond. We are the ones who have to have that discussion in the company of been known on occasion to refer to non- “outsiders.” That shit’s just embarrassing fans as mundanes. We are the ones who of- for everyone. But okay, so what? Other ten defne our preferred literature and me- than the embarrassment factor, why does dia in direct contradistinction to what we that avoidance matter? Here, I fnd myself commonly call “mainstream” writers, mar- returning to the question of what our fa- kets, and audiences. (Recall, for example, vourite villains may reveal about us. And Clute’s disdain for mainstream Hollywood I can’t help recalling Christopher’s sugges- “sci-f,” as opposed to the genre of science tion that our villains may simultaneously fction proper.) Some of us, including our expose and externalize aspects of ourselves very own Chip (Delaney), have even been that we might prefer not to acknowledge known to argue that we are not “literary” (or even consciously recognize), thus al- but “paraliterary” and that such a desig- lowing us to imagine them as originating nation may not be so much a problem as somewhere other than ourselves. If such a Damn Good Thing. We like to see our- were the case, what might my choice of selves as the few, the elect, the ones who

Scum & Villainy 122 Te Word Hoard Our Villains, Ourselves

get it, while outsiders most certainly don’t. adventure stories. And yet, how different is “They” may think we are scum, but we this from me and my SF compatriots who know better. And this community of self- feel we’ve been done wrong by Margaret declared and self-selected outsiders can get Atwood, who we also feel has somehow defensive about (perhaps even possessive oppressed us by disrespecting a genre (and of) our status as beleaguered, besieged, or ongoing genre conversation) that we are disrespected outcasts. This in turn might deeply invested in? We too fnd it easy to help to explain why we are prone to getting villainize Atwood’s power as a self-con- a bit defensive when an “outsider” infring- sciously (read: snootily) “literary” icon, to es or poaches on “our” territory, so much see her as knocking us down a rung Just so that we might even have a panel on that Because She Can. For that matter, how dif- topic at an international conference. ferent is this from me getting grumpy about The problem is, the Sad and Rabid psychoanalytic readings of SF, not because Puppies remind us (the SF community) of any carefully thought out logical objec- just how easily that sense of oneself as a tions but because I perceive them as mis- marginalized, disrespected, yet nobly self- understanding (or distorting, or somehow selected outsider can turn ugly. And look- disrespecting) the fantasy genre, my chosen ing too hard at those overlaps can be deeply area of study and expertise? uncomfortable. I think it should be clear by I suppose it’s a good thing I’m not a now that I don’t (want to) empathize with fan of psychoanalytic approaches, or else I the Sad and Rabid Puppies, groups whose might feel like I had to answer those ques- politics, aesthetics, and arguments I would tions. I do think, though, that it’s important rather not associate with SF at all. These to ask them. And to recognize that an unex- subsets of SF fandom identify so strongly amined sense of aggrieved self-righteous- with their own self-positioning as victims ness can (sometimes) be a Very Dangerous of “political correctness” in contempo- Thing. So does that mean I must hereby rary SF—as the “scum” rejected and dis- forego or disavow my reading of Margaret dained by a snooty liberal (and “literary”) Atwood as my personal favourite SF vil- SF elite—that they feel the need to stage a lain? Not a chance. Or at least, that’s not guerrilla revolt against the people they per- what I’m going to do. But it does mean, ceive as their oppressors, hoping to bring perhaps, that I should take a closer look and back the (largely imaginary) good old question where that might be coming from. days when science fction meant bug-eyed For example, I need to at least consider monsters, spaceships, and (predominantly the possibility that Atwood’s disavowal cis-white-hetero) manly rock’em-sock’em of “science fction” and single-handed

Issue 5, 2016 Bechtel 123 redefnition of “speculative fction” may tendencies and actions (and yes, written bother me on a far more personal, less ra- statements) that I have shaped into a par- tional level. Perhaps it bothers me as a writ- ticular character, a handy foil that may help er who, like Atwood, prefers to describe his me to externalize (and thereby deal with) own work as “speculative fction” but who certain persistent cultural, sub-cultural, and (unlike her) means something completely personal conficts. Not as a mere symptom different than she does by that term.19 Per- or neurosis—which would of course be the haps it bothers me even more that she, as true danger and consequence of denying a “literary” writer, has actively disavowed that role qua role—but as a tool for starting precisely the sort of connection to SF that to think through these conficts. As for the I deeply identify with and would prefer to real Margaret Atwood—the complex, fully embrace. Thanks to the whole Atwood/SF realized, fully human individual? I have kerfuffe, “speculative fction”—although never met her in person, and I probably this isn’t how Atwood defnes it—is now never will. I know very little about her, be- often thought of as a more respectable, more yond her essays, books, awards, accolades, literary cousin of “science fction,” which and the occasional Massey Lecture. And means I can no longer comfortably use I know there is far more to her—and her the term “speculative fction” to describe thinking—than the tiny sliver I have cho- my own work. Rather, as a writer whose sen to focus on here. But the villain… work is (sometimes) read as more “liter- Ah, the villain. Her I know well. ary” than “SF”—and to be clear, the idea And I have polished her to a high gloss. that those categories are mutually exclusive The villain is the one who once had has always struck me as ridiculous—I fnd a story published in Tesseracts2: Canadian myself being especially careful when us- Science Fiction and then later disavowed ing that term in American SF communities the term “science fction” itself in sharp for fear of sounding like an anti-SF snob. contradistinction to her own (idiosyncratic) Could it be that it offends me personally defnition of “speculative fction.” The vil- that Atwood so cavalierly rejects precisely lain published an entire book based (at least the sort of recognition from the SF commu- partially) on her own defnition (In Other nity that I would take as an honour? Worlds), thereby establishing her termi- Of course it could. And this is why nology so solidly in the CanLit conscious- I need to remind myself that the “Marga- ness that I now fnd myself having to either ret Atwood” I call my favourite SF villain avoid the term “speculative fction” in my is not a real person. She—the villain—is own teaching or engage in a lengthy discus- nothing more than a collection of villainous sion and careful critical contextualization

Scum & Villainy 124 Te Word Hoard Our Villains, Ourselves

in order to do so. The villain, my imaginary favourite SF villain for the foreseeable fu- nemesis, is also the author of an enthusias- ture. I can think of none better. My hon- tic introduction to Imaginarium 4: The Best oured—and almost entirely imaginary— Canadian Speculative Writing (“Introduc- adversary. Touché, Ms. Atwood. An honour tion: Don’t Be Alarmed”)—an anthology indeed. of Canadian SF encompassing “specula- tive short fction and poetry (science fc- tion, fantasy, horror, magic realism, etc.)” 1 In the latter case in particular, I fnd it hard (“Imaginarium 4”)—which also contains a to resist bringing up Tolkien’s discussion of reprint of one of my stories. And the villain the profound difference between the Flight is the one who wrote that entire introduc- of the Deserter and the Escape of the Pris- tion without ever once backing down from oner. But don’t mind me. I can be a little her own defnition of “speculative fction” hair-trigger defensive when it comes to (even while acknowledging that the editors my favourite genre(s). Though if you’re use an entirely different one), placing that at all curious, you can fnd that discussion term in scare-quotes whenever she used it in Tolkien’s essay “On Fairy Stories.” It’s to refer to the contents of the anthology. about two thirds of the way through. As she puts it, “What you’re holding in 2 As Mark Anthony Jarman once (satirical- your hand is ‘speculative,’ then, whatever ly) put it, in a surreal story about (among may be meant by the term. Let’s call these other things) Atwood’s ubiquity in the Ca- stories and poems ‘wonder tales’” (“In- nadian psyche, “I look out the window. troduction” 15). That clever, incorrigible, Margaret Atwood is climbing the outside glorious villain is so thoroughly infuriating of the [CN] tower like King Kong, like that she even managed to write her refus- Spiderwoman.” (See “Love is All Around ing-to-budge-on-her-definition-of-specu- Us.”) lative-fction introduction to an anthology 3 See, for example, Le Guin’s “Why are of speculative fction (and poetry) without Americans Afraid of Dragons?” (1974) and disrespecting a single story in the book. In “Spike the Canon” (1989). fact, she seems to like it quite a bit and ex- 4 It should be noted that Clute here does not pounds at some length upon the rewards of intend “sci-f” as a synonym for “science reading such a volume. fction” but as a judgement of quality, since Oh that rogue, that devious sil- within (some parts of) the SF community, ver-tongued trickster, that… that… “sci-f” has long been a pejorative term Margaret Atwood. reserved specifcally for poorly conceived What can I say? Yes, Margaret At- and executed works that exhibit the fashiest wood is still and shall continue to be my external trappings of SF (e.g. lasers, rockets,

Issue 5, 2016 Bechtel 125 etc.) without the extrapolative rigour and Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (Nicholls substance that might more properly be and Langford). identifed as “science fction.” 9 The panellists were James Patrick Kelly, 5 In a specifcally Canadian context, Ted Chiang, Jacob Weisman, John Kessel, Judith Merrill’s introduction to the frst Siobhan Carroll, and Alyssa Wong. Tesseracts: Canadian Science Fiction However, my summaries of each panellist’s anthology (1984) notes “speculation” positions are reconstructed entirely from as an essential central element of the SF memory and should therefore be taken with genre. Tesseracts2: Canadian Science a grain of salt. Fiction (Gottleib and Barbour, 1987)— 10 See Taylor Clarke’s “The Perfectionist.” which, as it turns out, includes a story by 11 My apologies: I don’t recall who said Margaret Atwood—explicitly expands its this, only that it was said. defnition of “science fction” to include 12 The English lit scholar in me can’t help fantasy. Tesseracts3 (Dorsey and Truscott, noticing how this panel conversation 1990) abandons the science fction subtitle reproduces, from frst principles, entirely, asserting in its introduction that longstanding questions in that feld, where “The S in SF means speculative” (3). the idea of the SF conversation overlaps Finally, Tesseracts5: The Anthology of New with the broader concept of intertextuality, Canadian Speculative Fiction (Runté and and the question of what constitutes a Meynard, 1996), however, explicitly adds “proper” or “suffcient” education in SF is the term “speculative fction” in the title, at heart a question of canon-building, with and this term has since been included in all the corollaries that entails. But of course, one way or another in the subtitle of all this is precisely how SF does what it does. subsequent Tesseracts volumes of Canadian It constructs a thought-experiment from a SF. given set of frst principles, then pursues 6 The archived full podcast of this that thought-experiment’s implications conversation can be found online at “Ursula (whether logical, ethical, moral, or Le Guin & Margaret Atwood” (http://www. otherwise) to see where they may lead. literary-arts.org/archive/ursula-le-guin- 13 See “Spotlight on: Alyssa Wong, author.” margaret-atwood). 14 Coverage included articles in The 7 See “Margaret Atwood and the S and F Guardian (Walter), Slate (Waldman), Words” (2011). The Atlantic (Hurley), and New Republic 8 For a concise summary of the term (Heer), among others. “speculative fction” and how it has been 15 See Brad Torgersen’s “Announcing SAD used in various SF communities and PUPPIES 3” and “SAD PUPPIES 3: The contexts, for example, see its entry in The unraveling of an unreliable feld”.

Scum & Villainy 126 Te Word Hoard Our Villains, Ourselves

16 The pejorative use of “social justice warriors” was popularized as part of Gamergate—a similar movement emerging from the videogame community, and with strong ties to the Rabid Puppies—and I will leave it up to you to decide whether you want to read up on that (rather long) side- story at “What Is Gamergate, and Why? An Explainer for Non-Geeks” (Hathaway). 17 To be clear, in its original context, Day’s phrase “ignorant half-savage” is even more explicitly couched in racist discourse than it sounds on its own. Day’s full blog- post is easily Google-able, but I would highly recommend a quick reading of the following summary before deciding if you want to read the original post: “Vox Day says his totally-not-racist comments have been taken out of context. In context they’re even worse” (Futrelle). 18 See “’No award’ sweeps the Hugo Awards following controversy” (Dean). 19 As is probably already apparent, when I use the term speculative fction, I mean the umbrella-term usage most common in my own community of (Canadian) SF writers, the one encompassing all of the speculative genres, including science fction, fantasy, horror, magical realism, the weird, the new weird, slipstream, and all of the hard-to- classify works that (like my own) fall into the cracks between the various genres and sub-genres of the fantastic.

Issue 5, 2016 Bechtel 127

Works Cited views. Beccon Publications, 2009. 72-75. Web. 2 June 2016. http:// Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. www.lxnen.com/rogerbeccon/X/ Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Canary.pdf 1985. Print. ---. “Margaret Atwood and the S and F ---. “If it is plausible or realistic, it is not Words.” Rev. of In Other Worlds: science fction.” Introduction to In SF and the Human Imagination by Other Worlds. Rpt. on io9. 6 Octo- Margaret Atwood. Los Angeles Re- ber 2011. Web. http://io9.gizmodo. view of Books, 27 Nov. 2011. Web. com/5847421/if-it-is-realistic-or- https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/ plausible-then-it-is-not-science- margaret-atwood-and-the-s-and-f- fction words/ ---. In Other Worlds. Toronto, ON: Signal, Day, Vox. “A black female fantasist calls 2011. Print. for Reconciliation.” Vox Popoli. ---. “Introduction: Don’t Be Alarmed.” 13 June 2013. Web. 2 June 2016. Imaginarium 4: The Best Canadian [Google it if you must. I would Speculative Writing. Eds. Sandra prefer not to provide a link.] Kasturi and Jerome Stueart. To- Dean, Michelle. “‘No award’ sweeps the ronto, ON: Chizine, 2016. 13-16. Hugo Awards following controver- Print. sy.” The Guardian. 23 Aug. 2015. ---. “Writing Utopia.” Moving Targets: Web. 2 June 2016. https://www. Writing with Intent, 1982-2004. theguardian.com/books/ 2015/ Toronto, ON: Anansi P, 2005. 102- aug/23/no-award-hugo-awards- 111. Print. following-controversy ---. The Year of the Flood. Toronto: Mc- Diaz, Junot. The Brief and Wondrous Life Clelland & Stewart, 2009. Print. of Oscar Wao. New York, N.Y.: Clarke, Taylor. “The Perfectionist.” The Riverhead Books, 2007. Print. California Sunday Magazine. Dorsey, Candas Jane and Gerry Truscott, 4 Jan. 2015. Web. 3 June 2016. eds. Tesseracts3. Victoria, B.C.: https://stories.californiasunday. Porcépic Press, 1990. Print. com/2015-01-04/ted-chiang-scif- Futrelle, David. “Vox Day says his totally- perfectionist/ not-racist comments have been Clute, John. “Croaked.” Rev. of Oryx and taken out of context. In context Crake by Margaret Atwood. Select- they’re even worse” We Hunted ed Articles from Canary Fever: Re- the Mammoth: the New Misogyny

Scum & Villainy 128 Te Word Hoard Our Villains, Ourselves

Hunted and Tracked. 13 Apr. chizinepub.com/books/imaginar- 2015. Web. 2 June 2016. http:// ium-4-best-canadian-speculative- www.wehuntedthemammoth. writing com/2015/04/13/vox-day-says-his- Jarman, Mark Anthony. “Love is All totally-not-racist-comments-have- Around Us.” Qwerte. n.d. Web. 1 been-taken-out-of-context-in-con- June 2016. https://www.lib.unb.ca/ text-theyre-even-worse/ Texts/QWERTY/Qweb/qwerte/jar- Gottleib, Phyllis and Douglas Barbour, man/love.html eds. Tesseracts2: Canadian Science Jemisin, N. K. “About.” N. K. Jemisin. N. Fiction. Victoria, B.C.: Porcépic Web. 2 June 2016. http://nkjemisin. Press, 1987. Print. com/about/ Hathaway, Jay. “”What Is Gamergate, Kasturi, Sandra and Jerome Stueart, eds. and Why? An Explainer for Imaginarium 4: The Best Canadian Non-Geeks.” Gawker. 10 Oct. Speculative Writing. Toronto, ON: 2014. Web. 2 June 2016. http:// Chizine, 2016. Print. gawker.com/what-is-gamergate- Langford, David. “Bits and Pieces.” An- and-why-an-explainer-for-non- sible. SFX Magazine, August 2003. geeks-1642909080 Web. 2 June 2016. http://ansible. Heer, Jeet. “Science Fiction’s White Boys’ uk/sfx/sfx107.html Club Strikes Back.” New Repub- Le Guin, Ursula K. “Spike the Canon.” lic. 16 Apr 2015. Web. 2 June SFRA Newsletter 169 (1989): 17- 2016. https://newrepublic.com/ 21. Digital Collection - Science article/121554/2015-hugo-awards- Fiction & Fantasy. Web. 3 June and-history-science-fction-culture- 2016. http://scholarcommons.usf. wars edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1 Hurley, Kameron. “Hijacking the Hugo 113&context=scifstud_pu Awards Won’t Stife Diversity in ---. “Why are Americans Afraid of Drag- Science Fiction.” The Atlantic. ons?” 1974. Rept. in The Language 9 Apr. 2015. Web. 2 June 2016. of the Night: Essays on Fantasy http://www.theatlantic.com/ enter- and Science Fiction. New York, tainment/archive/2015/04/the-cul- N.Y.: Ultramarine Publishing, ture-wars-come-to-sci-f/390012/ 1980. Print. “Imaginarium 4: The Best Canadian Spec- ---. “The Year of the Flood by Margaret ulative Writing.” ChiZine Publica- Atwood.” The Guardian. 29 Aug. tions. Web. 2 June 2016. http:// 2009. Web. 2 June 2016. https://

Issue 5, 2016 Bechtel 129

www.theguardian.com/books/2009/ 2016. https://bradrtorgersen.word- aug/29/margaret-atwood-year-of- press.com/ 2015/01/07/ announc- food ing-sad-puppies-3/ Merrill, Judith, ed. Tesseracts: Canadian ---. “SAD PUPPIES 3: The unraveling of Science Fiction. Victoria, B.C.: an unreliable feld.” Torgersen: Porcépic Press, 1985. Print. Blue Collar Spec Fic. 4 Feb. Nicholls, Peter and David Langford. 2015. Web. 2 June 2016. https:// “Speculative Fiction.” SFE: The bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/ Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. 2015/02/04/ sad-puppies-3-the- 2 Apr. 2015. Web. 22 June 2016. unraveling-of-an-unreliable-feld/ http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/ “Ursula Le Guin & Margaret Atwood.” entry/speculative_fction Literary Arts. 23 Sept. 2010. Web. Runté, Robert and Yves Meynard, eds. 2 June 2016. http://www.literary- Tesseracts5: The Anthology of New arts.org/archive/ursula-le-guin- Canadian Speculative Fiction. margaret-atwood/ Edmonton, AB.: Tesseract Books, Waldman, Katy. “How Sci-Fi’s Hugo 1996. Print. Awards Got Their Own Full-Blown Schneiderman, Miles. “Sad Puppies, Rabid Gamergate.” Slate. 8 April 2015. Chauvinists: Will Raging White Web. 2 June 2016. http://www. Guys Succeed in Hijacking Sci- slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/04/ Fi’s Biggest Awards?” YES! Maga- 08/_2015_hugo_awards_how_ zine. 14 Aug. 2015. Web. 2 June the_sad_and_rabid_puppies_took_ 2016. http://www.yesmagazine. over_the_sci_f_nominations.html org/peace-justice/sad-puppies- Walter, Damien. “Diversity wins as the 2015-hugo-awards-20150814 Sad Puppies lose at the Hugo “Spotlight on: Alyssa Wong, author.” Lo- awards.” The Guardian. 24 Aug. cus Online. 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 2 2015. Web. 2 June 2016. https:// June 2016. http://www.locusmag. www.theguardian.com/books/ com/Perspectives/2015/04/spot- booksblog/2015/aug/24/diversity- light-on-alyssa-wong-author/ wins-as-the-sad-puppies-lose-at- Tolkien, J. R. R. Tree and Leaf. London: the-hugo-awards Allen and Unwin, 1964. Print. Wong, Alyssa. “’Hungry Daughters of Torgersen, Brad. “Announcing SAD PUP- Starving Mothers’ wins Nebula PIES 3.” Torgersen: Blue Collar Award for Best Short Story!” Spec Fic. 7 Jan. 2015. Web. 2 June Alyssa Wong. 15 May 2016. Web.

Scum & Villainy 130 Te Word Hoard Our Villains, Ourselves

2 June 2016. http:// crashwong. net/post/144403195909/hungry- daughters-of-starving-mothers- wins-nebula

Issue 5, 2016