Pirates, Hustlers, and Jerks

4 March 2001

It's just after six in the morning. Maybe it'll be a two-entry day. Whooo. I'm just so angry, upset, and disappointed that I had to sit down and vent specifically. For those of you who read Timprov's journal, you may have an inkling of what's upset me. Yep, it's Harlan Ellison's rant on Speculations.

Those of you who are really into SF may be wondering why the hell I let Harlan Ellison get to me. The answer is, it's not really Ellison who's getting to me. Everybody in the genre knows that he's fond of spewing hateful venom every which direction. I think even people who think his fiction is brilliant have to agree that the man is a loose cannon, fond of going on rude tirades when he has very few, if any, of the facts. I have no expectations of Harlan Ellison any more. I do, however, have expectations of some other people, including the editors of Speculations and the related writer-folks who hang out at the Rumor Mill. And that's where I'm disappointed.

See, Bruce Sterling got me royally peeved about two years ago with an article he published in "Time" magazine, claiming, among other things, that SF didn't have to be internally consistent. Basically, he reinforced a lot of the negative stereotypes that people who don't read the genre have about it. So I'm used to being annoyed at former would-be revolutionaries who are still convinced they have rebel cred now that they've joined The Establishment. (See yesterday's entry for a brief comment on this.) But with the editors and readers of "Time," I had no expectations. I did not assume that they knew or cared about SF. While I try not to be dismissive of people who don't read SF, I don't expect them not to be dismissive of me. I am -- I think "we are" would be appropriate here -- used to being stigmatized and ghettoized. "Hey, you write that sci-fi stuff?" (Hear me grinding my teeth?) "I got a question for you. How come sci-fi aliens always are about the same size and shape as humans? Huh?" Or perhaps marginally better: "Hey, it's '2001' now, I guess you sci-fi writers really don't know what you're talking about, huh?"

I don't have to like it, but I'm used to people assuming that what I write is crap that's beneath them. So while I got mad at Bruce Sterling, I didn't stay mad for long.

SF writers and fans ought to know better. And ought to behave better. No, fandom as a group is not perfect. Speculative fiction writers are not perfect. I don't expect them to be. I think there are some traits that we ought to be able to expect of each other, though. Ability to read and analyze a document is on the list. Willingness to stick up for oneself and one's peers ought to be.

Umm. I think you should maybe read Ellison's screed before you go on to what I'm about to say. I'll try to make it clear what he's talking about, but I don't want you to take my word for it. Okay? The link is up there.

You ready now? Good. First of all, suing AOL because somebody posted copyrighted work from an AOL account is like suing Xerox because someone used one of their machines to make unauthorized copyrighted photocopies. In fact, throughout this entire rant, Mr. Ellison hopes to use indignation about "internet piracy" to cover up the fact that he doesn't have a clue how the internet actually functions or what he's talking about. Sue the power company! They let the computers run! Sue the paper industry! The "internet pirates" might have printed out their ill-gotten gains! In fact, why don't we get really logical and sue Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Gateway, Intel, Hewlett Packard, and anyone else we can think of who might have contributed just as directly as AOL did to the dreaded "internet pirates." The truth is, AOL has money, and (as Mr. Ellison makes clear later in his letter) he's not really looking for restitution. He's looking for revenge on every wrong, real or imagined, ever perpetrated upon a writer. Unfortunately, a lot of the Bad People are not as rich as AOL and thus not as tempting a target.

I do agree that people should have control over who reprints their works and where. Definitely. However, suing the right people, the ones who are actually responsible, might be some approach to stopping that problem. Guess what? Probably not. But "internet piracy" is not a problem anyway. Here's why.

Pop quiz: what has happened to sales of music albums since Napster got started?

a) They have decreased, and their rate of decrease has gotten faster. b) They have decreased, but their rate of decrease is slowing. c) They have increased, but their rate of increase is slowing. d) They have increased, and their rate of increase has gotten faster.

Time's up, kids. The answer is d. But how can that be? If we allow Napster to exist, everyone will steal music forever and all artists will go broke (and, incidentally, so will the record companies, not that they're the motivating force, heavens, no)! Isn't that what We Know To Be True? Well, actually, what I know to be true is that the record companies are morons and need to hire someone born since, oh, 1970 to do something besides sing and dance around. Because over and over again, you will see people who use Napster buying the albums for which they have the MP3s. It serves as advertising. If the record companies were really smart, they'd encourage putting tracks out for trial use on the internet. My "spoiled" generation is spoiled enough not to want to put up with poor sound quality and inconvenient usage of music.

So what does this have to do with Ellison's little rant about the internet. Just this: if he was willing to actually process social and technological changes since 1965, he would realize that internet availability of his stories would probably help his book sales. People like books. Even with computer monitors getting better and better, people who read a lot generally prefer something with good resolution and portability, something they can keep around for further use -- that is to say, a book.

I firmly believe that if the New Wave folks had come along in the Nineties instead of the Sixties, they would have been attempting to be the first ones on the internet fiction bandwagon. They would be trying desperately to sell to Scifiction, Speculon, Strange Horizons, Would That It Were, and any other professionally paying website they could find. Because for short stories, the internet works. Do you think Scifiction is going to get slighted in recognition and awards because it's an internet publication? It's edited by Ellen Datlow, people. I think not. Do you think reprints won't sell to the Year's Best anthologies and so on? Well, that's be pretty darned ironic considering that Datlow herself edits one of them and Gardner Dozois, who edits another, has been scrupulous about posting Award nominee stories from the print version of Asimov's on their website. I have some gripes with Asimov's, but that's certainly not one.

Short stories haven't been selling for sour owl crap in print. Magazine sales have been dropping for years and years. This is just plain fact.

But I digress. Okay. So instead of stopping with the so-called internet pirates, instead of merely being illogical or at best out-dated about what will serve his own career interests, Ellison decides that nobody ought to be able to publish on the internet. That those who do are "e-commerce hustlers" who are encouraging "zero-ethic tots" to "steal, steal, steal" and "Screw the author!" (Note: it's always amusing when a former Young Revolutionary starts using youth as an insult. Shows what's really going on in their heads.) Gosh, that Timprov. What a hustler. Paying 5 cents a word of his own money directly to the authors in order to steal from them. He's not a very good thief, I guess. Smart guy like that, you would have thought he could figure out a better way to steal from people. Ellen Datlow always seemed like she was a pretty smart lady, but she's paying twice as much to steal from people. Guess she must be twice as stupid. Even the folks at Strange Horizons -- I've heard great things about them, they've got class, and I like their magazine, but 4 cents a word to steal from people, well, that's just highway robbery. Considering what it takes for most people who put out paying webzines to actually afford them, I have two rather pithy words for Mr. Ellison on the subject of the supposed e-commerce hustlers. But my mommy doesn't like me to use one of them, and the other isn't very pithy without it, so I had to write a whole sarcastic paragraph instead.

Part of the rest of what is upsetting about the letter itself is so much bullshit that I have to emphasize it by quoting it direct (all caps Ellison's): "I'M FIGHTING FOR MYSELF, OF COURSE, BUT I'M ALSO DOING THIS FOR AVRAM DAVIDSON, WHO DIED BROKE; FOR ROGER ZELAZNY, WHO HAD TO WORK LIKE A DOG TILL THE DAY HE PITCHED OVER; AND FOR GERALD KERSH, WHOSE WORK WAS REPRINTED AND PIRATED IN SIXTY-FIVE COUNTRIES, WHILE HE HAD TO BORROW MONEY FROM FRIENDS TO FIGHT OFF THE CANCER. THIS IS YOUR FIGHT, TOO, GANG… AND NOW WE NEED YOUR HELP!"

Amazing. Did you know that internet pirates -- and paying internet publishers -- are responsible for Avram Davidson's financial woes? Mr. Davidson died in 1993, so the pirates must have moved awfully fast. In fact, I think there are two fundamental problems with Ellison's above logic: the internet was not involved in any of these people's problems, and people do not automatically deserve to be wealthy merely because Harlan Ellison likes their stuff. They don't even deserve to be wealthy merely because I like their stuff (sorry, Tim!). Most of the people who had access to this letter on Speculations are SF readers and internet users; I would lay money that less than 1% of them do not read online publications. And yet, chummily, Ellison comes along calling them "gang" and expects them not to remember that a few minutes ago, they were "zero-ethic tots" or "e-commerce hustlers," thieves and amateurs.

And you know what really has me mad this morning? They do forget. They see the words "internet piracy" and automatically assume that Ellison is Fighting The Good Fight. Or they actually read the case brief and find that he has some valid points (although some are indefensible), and they think that that gives him leeway to insult them and their colleagues. I don't know if it's because "internet piracy" is just such a bad phrase that we must all rally against it, or if Harlan Ellison is just allowed to get donations of our money for insulting us because of who he is, or what the deal is here. But when Timprov spoke up to say that Ellison was full of it and moreover being a jerk about things, nobody else around the Rumor Mill spoke up to say, "Yeah, you're right!" Timprov knows he has the support of some friends and family, but is that really all he can expect from a community like that? And, hell, forget respect for him for a minute (oh wait, some people already did) -- doesn't anybody around there have any self-respect?

Look, I'm trying not to burn too many bridges here. I've had nothing but positive experiences with Rumor Mill people so far. In fact, my experiences with fandom and SF writers in general have been so positive that I'm almost willing to discount this one glaringly large experience. Almost. But I have to ask: what is wrong with you people? Do I have to be your mommy and ask, "If Harlan Ellison told you to jump off a bridge, would you?" Who else gets a knee-jerk, "Yes, sir!"? Who else in this genre can be rude at will and expect to get money from the people he's insulting -- not for good fiction, poetry, editing, or illustrations, but specifically for insulting them? What will it take to make you stand up for yourselves and your colleagues?

If you're part of the Rumor Mill, if you read Speculations -- re-read Ellison's article. Really think about what he's saying, who he's insulting, where his position actually goes. And then don't let him get away with being a jerk one more time. The more times we say, "Oh, it's just Ellison being an ass again," the more times he gets to be an ass. The more times his clueless, technophobic, venomous screeds will be published, when anyone else would be held to a higher standard of civil discourse. The more he will be chosen to represent us, because we let him, we let him say that it's our fight even when he calls us names. This is not about "only fiction." This is about doing the right thing. And invoking magic words like "internet piracy" does not automatically put him on the side of angels.

Back to Morphism.

And the main page.

Or even send me email.