(Now if only I can find out how to join the group Jeff VanderMeer mentions, M@therf*ckers Who Object to the Use of Hammers! (Mwouh!).

So, let’s say, you read The Eyes of Argon and you love it; you’re gripped, thrilled, moved and inspired. Then you read a review that says ‘The Eyes of Argon is terribly bad stuff.’ Do you then

(a) (like Mark) say to yourself: a different opinion to mine, how interesting, let a thousand flowers bloom and a thousand schools of thought contend, one feature of great art is that it provokes a diversity of responses. Or

(b) say to yourself: the review, by calling this book crap, is saying that my taste in books is crap which is tantamount to calling me a big crappy crap-crap. Nobody calls me a big crap-crap and gets away with it. Where does this motherfucker get off calling people big crap-craps like this? Why can’t s/he keep their offensive opinions to themselves?

But of course it goes without saying that reviewers respond to the book they have read, not to the idea in their heads of the sort of people who like the book they have just read. Apart from me, I mean. Obviously when I review, I do so specifically to mock the value-systems and worth of people who read. People like you, sir. And you madam.

“To be clear, I look forward to reading Jetse de Vries’s book,”

Thanks for that, Kathryn.

“…but find it irritating that in the advance PR the shine people seem to need to find enemies for the cause of Optimism.”

The SFF Ethics group and blog is Andy Remic’s brainchild. They are *not* the shine people — basically, there is only one ’shine anthology’ person, and that’s me — and are also not the advance PR for my anthology.

Andy Remic asked me to join the SFFEthics group a few weeks ago, explaining that “this project aims to be a hub of all that is good and wholesome in these genres – the sort of positive novels, films and video games that fire the soul and, at a basic and wholesome level, entertain.”

Which was (and is) fine by me, and I decided to join. I was (and am) unhappy with the ‘ethics’ moniker, voiced my misgivings in the group, but the majority decided to run with it anyway.

Just to say that this is a group, with Andy Remic as main editor, which I joined a bit later in the game, and over which I have minimal (if any) influence.

I applaud the original goal (as quoted above), but I am not looking for *enemies* to the cause of optimism, rather the contrary: I am trying to get people interested in it by setting a positive example, not by alienating them.

The “stand against the motherfuckers who, to my mind are systemetically ruining the SFFH genres” is from Andy Remic, not from me. That was never my intent when I joined SFFE (nor did anybody tell me it would be), and if that is what SFFE will be doing then I will leave the group.

For now I’ll take a jaundiced look on how things develop (and I always try to keep a dialogue going), but I am not happy with how SFFE’s first days after the launch went, so far.

“I think most people would _like_ to be more optimistic about the future.”

Kathryn, I couldn’t agree more.

I think that’s what she was trying to say, although I could be wrong.

I’m confused. SFFE is happening because some reviewers have appropriated the authority to decide which book is good or bad, but isn’t that what all reviewers do? If you post a positive review of a book Jonathan reviewed negatively, aren’t you claiming the same authority you’ve just denied to Jonathan?