明らかのからの私達の商業社会の不精な予想を混同する衝撃を与えること、暗闇および推測的な視野への細道。

-- Nairo Hamada

Issue 2008.13

Short stories

• ‘Avatar on the Belts 3: Aither’, William J. Piovano - art by Sarah Cerulean
• ‘One Drop’, David Dumitru - art by Paul Downes
• ‘Suburban Alchemist’, Rob Sharp - art by Rachel H. White
• ‘Getting Down and Dirty’, Michael Johnson - art by Cécile Matthey

See all reviews

Download e-book version: PDF

There has been a lot of talk recently (most notably by Lou Anders and in an SF Signal Mind-Meld) of our ability, or responsibility, or reluctance, to read science-fiction by authors who espouse a political or other viewpoint opposed to your own. Arguments range from the practical ("I don't want to buy [insert asshole of your choice]'s books and put money in his purse"), to the tangential ("Science fiction is all about engaging with the other") to the plain disingenuous ("Don't think you can tell what I believe from my writing").

There are two arguments that I don't think have been addressed, so far (although I must confess to skimming some of the discussion, especially comments). On the one hand there is something to be said for Knowing Your Enemy: read what those you disagree with have to say, especially those you disagree with vehemently, because otherwise you don't know fully what it is you have to contend with, to argue against. (I think this argument works a little better with non-fiction than with art, though.) On the other hand we must not forget that reading what you agree with is also important. As Ursula LeGuin pointed out a few years ago, "If you don't preach to the choir the choir won't keep singing" (GobQ 3, 2003, p. 25).

A distinctly separate but perhaps analogous issue is something that's been of concern to us at TFF lately. We're very interested in speculative fiction that has a social/political agenda or at least allows a social/political reading. One corollary of that is we have had to make decisions about otherwise perfectly good science fiction stories with social, political, religious, or other agendas that we find antithetical to our own beliefs, opinions, or positions. Ultimately we probably won't publish a story whose overt message (not necessarily the beliefs of its author, but the independent implications of the story) we find offensive. Offensive content is fine; that's not the same thing as the thrust or the underlying assumptions behind a story. It's important to point out that (1) this is nothing to do with free speech—we're not denying (and in fact would fight to defend) your right to tell such stories—; and (2) it is not that we won't listen to or read such stories. It is just that we are political animals, TFF is an ideological organ (as are all publications), and we will not give a platform to a story that seems to imply (whatever the author may believe or intend) that discrimination or violence based on race, sex, sexuality, or belief is ever justified; that torture is ever required for the greater good; that a pacifist or a diplomat is a traitor while an élitist, jingoistic military saves us from our own weakness; that eroding civil liberties and privacy is harmless and necessary; that no social experiment can ever improve on our economic models; or that global warming and evolution are merely "articles of faith".

As we say, go ahead and tell that story. We may even read it. But that's not the story we're helping to tell.

Bruce and Djibril, general editors

September 2008