Feminist SF Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:RaceFail 09

2009-02-08T04:40:05Z

69.201.143.52: /* Names and pseudonyms */

=Internal Links for Blog Post Titles=

I thought it would be a good idea for each of the major blog posts (particularly those that have disappeared from the public Internet) to have its own page where we can call out highlights, important threads, and individual comments that sparked other discussions/posts, etc. That will keep the main timeline page pretty clear and straightforward. -KTempest

:It's a good idea, though copyright restrictions may apply. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] aka [[Kathryn Cramer]]16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:: I think it is fair use, as these posts have been quoted and responded to and are part of public discourse. I'm not the expert on that though. 8-) --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:::The general rule of thumb for fair use is quoting 150 words. On my blog, I don't sweat this and on rare occasions when it becomes an issue I either remove the content, pay a fee for use, or both, but Wikis can exist only because of the willingness to put things under a free license (in this case GNU Free Documentation License 1.2), so in general one should adhere to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use guidelines]. ([http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml LJ's ToS] state the material is copyright by its author, which is as I expected.)--[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't say that rule of thumb is appropriate here (and I'd be curious of the context from which it is drawn: I'm guessing the publishing industry. "Best practices" frequently become far more normative than they were originally intended to be when it comes to fair use, and don't translate well to other contexts.). Fair use is a defence, not a hard and fast rule, and while this isn't legal advice, I'd suggest that Pleasantville's approach on her own blog is the best: don't sweat it. If someone is upset at being quoted, there are plenty of forms of conciliation that can be used before IP law needs to be invoked. Calling out (linking to) content would be almost certainly fine, copying-and-pasting beyond what's necessary for review and analysis will gradually shade into other issues. Our stuff on Chilling Effects on the [[http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/faq.cgi Fair Use factors]] may be of use. --[[User:Mala|Mala]] 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Copyright attorney / co-admin of the FSFwiki weighing in: 150 is a rule of thumb adopted by some people / organizations, but it is just that -- a voluntary rule of thumb. It in no way reflects the state of the law, which is probably better termed, "as much as needed for a legitimate purpose." Documenting an event and the views, and important language that comes up, is unquestionably important; and so long as individual passages are not unnecessarily included (for instance, to try to or with the effect of supplanting the original) then I think we're okay. In short, it is a fact-specific analysis, and thus we can make our own assessment on a case-by-case basis. No rules of thumb apply. I feel very strongly about this. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

::::I envisioned that whole posts would be pasted in when they were no longer available at their original location but were, at one point, public. Like Teresa's post. Otherwise, readers can click to the original to read the whole thing but stay on the page to see important highlights and get the gist of the discussion. [[User:Ktempest|Tempest]] 06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)\
::::: That works for me. I'm going to take out the full text of things like David Levine's post which are still up, and replace it with links to the original. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 18:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

=Names and pseudonyms=

I'm really not digging this distinction between the pseudonyms and the driver's license names. Is this necessary, and if so, why?
- vito excalibur
:Yes. Since it is important to know who is speaking, and for half the participants, we don't. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:: This was one the sub-issues raised in the events being documented, and so I personally disagree on the wiki taking a position on it here. --Kate Nepveu

::: There's really no way not to take a position on it: either we separate the names or we don't. -- vito excalibur

:::: I don't see any point in separating people out under different headings. If the person has, themselves, associated their real name with their screen name or pen name, or if it is common public knowledge (as it is for my screen name of badgerbag), list one with the other(s) right next to it and alphabetize under the name you think people are most commonly known by. If there are pages for both identities, link them to each other or make a redirect page. By the way, to make this nifty name/time stamp, click the signature-looking thing in the little toolbar above the edit text input window, and it will magically appear.. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

::::: Yeah, I put that badly. Let me rephrase: I disagree with Kathryn Cramer that the distinction was necessary or useful. And now I see that it's been changed while I was off. -- Kate Nepveu
::::::I think it sort of speaks for itself anyway.--[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: Which "we" is this? I don't need to know what name corresponds to a pseudonym in order to address that pseudonym's arguments. One of the central arguments in the debate was whether it was appropriate to use pseudonyms; outing someone who has explicitly chosen to be anonymous is cheap, and assumes a premise that was actually being debated. --[[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]] 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: Seconded. I'm removing the outings. If you need to know who coffeeandink is, you can look at her *years* of public postings. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In terms of why this is necessary, I ask: Is it widely known, for example, that [[coffeeandink]] used to work at Tor, where she reported to [[pnh]]? (I presume it's not, since she doesn't include that job on her LinkedIn page.) People don't just spring into existence when they make up pseudonyms. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
: Pleasantville, if you think it's so important, why don't you just put that on her wiki page? I don't see why that requires people to be divided into separate categories on this page. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::I did already. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not seeing why it's necessary to know that. coffeeandink's many years of posting about race, cultural appropriation, fandom, writing, internet drama, and massive fail stand firmly behind anything she has said in this particular discussion about Patrick, teresa, or anyone else involved. [[User:Ktempest|Tempest]] 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::: I've just deleted the link to the LinkedIn page in your comment because [[coffeeandink]] does not want her LJ to be Googleable and connected to her full name. I hope we can respect that wish. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: I think that we can put that bit in about employment, which Pleasantville wants to be clear to outline some of the complexities of people's relationships. But I would like us to respect people's choices about pseudonymity as best we can. The need for anonymity is one of the reasons that women's history is hard to document. Let's do the best we can here. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: I was formulating an argument along these lines in the car on the way home, but you did it better. Thank you. --[[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]] 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have my full name on my LJ because it's unique and I don't want it Google-able. Please remove the redirect and the page account.

I feel my first name is sufficiently unusual that people who are looking for the connection can draw it on their own.(request from coffeeandink 2009-02-06T17:38:53)

: Uh, yeeeahh. Speaking of which, does this Wiki have an outing policy? (Rather, an anti-outing policy?) Because if it doesn't, I foresee difficulties with outreach to media fannish communities. I did a quick search and didn't find anything.--[[User:Veejane|Veejane]] 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Good idea. We have [[FSFwiki:Privacy]], but perhaps it needs to be more specific. (Philosophically, I don't bother with pushing policy until it's an issue.) Veejane, do you have any examples? Or would you like to edit the [[FSFwiki:Privacy|current privacy policy]]? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 11:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Neither of those wikilinks goes anywhere. The policy appears to be [[FSFwiki:Privacy_policy|here]] and about a sentence long. (I also think it should be linked from the Getting Started page, since a privacy policy is baseline information for my attitude towards a site.) You've had one outing, above, and I can still find that outing by comparing the history of edits. So although the identifying data have been deleted from the page, they're still there for anyone to find. Basically, the outing is still occurring even now. By contrast, another wiki I've worked on, [http://fanlore.org/wiki/Fanlore:Identity_Protection Fanlore], has a policy that not only requires removal of outing data, but also hides those particular edits from the history, so the data can't be recovered. It might also be worth asking what tools admins have to control malicious outing. Will that fall under a harassment policy? I.... can't find a harassment policy. This all sounds paranoid, I realize. But better to have a policy and not need it than be flailing in the middle of an emergency without one.--[[User:Veejane|Veejane]] 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: Veejane, no need to apologize for pushing for things like an outing policy and a harassment policy; they are things the wiki should probably have. I suspect it just hasn't needed them before now. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is minor, but related to the overall "real name" discussion. Is there a reason why Elizabeth Bear's full name is after her pen name on the page? It's not as if she is known by her full name (she's been going by Elizabeth Bear and eBear since I've known her, lo these 10 years), nor is knowing her full name of use in the conversation. She's not hiding, it's not a "fan name" (not that I think we necessarily need to connect fan names to "real names"), so why is it necessary? --Tempest
: Fair enough, I'ma take it out. Do you think she wouldn't want it up there and it should be a "hide from edit" thing, or just take it out? --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
: It looks like she's completely comfortable with it -- I Googled the pair of their names and there's an interview with her whose first paragraph gives her real name. [http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/authors/from_shakespeare_to_ragnarok_elizabeth_bear_keeps_busy_91271.asp] On the other hand, I don't know why the legal name is necessary in the Wiki. --[[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]] 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not saying she'd be uncomfortable with it. It's not as if her real name is a secret, anyway. My larger point was: why was it there? Was it just due to the anti-pseudonym thing? This is one of the problems I have with the anti-pseud thing. Sometimes the real/legal name of a person is not necessary to identify them, what they say around the internet and in real life, etc. To use myself as an example, Tempest is no part of my legal name, and yet almost everyone in the SF/F community knows me by that name. Almost everything I write and do is connected to it. Thus, I'm not hiding, I'm just using a name I chose for myself. It's very much the same for people who go by fan names, I think. Even if your name is not Willow Wren, if that's what everyone knows you as, then it might as well be your real name for the purpose of identifying you and the things you have to say. --Tempest

Talk:RaceFail 09

2009-02-07T14:05:49Z

69.201.143.52: /* Names and pseudonyms */

=Internal Links for Blog Post Titles=

I thought it would be a good idea for each of the major blog posts (particularly those that have disappeared from the public Internet) to have its own page where we can call out highlights, important threads, and individual comments that sparked other discussions/posts, etc. That will keep the main timeline page pretty clear and straightforward. -KTempest

:It's a good idea, though copyright restrictions may apply. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] aka [[Kathryn Cramer]]16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:: I think it is fair use, as these posts have been quoted and responded to and are part of public discourse. I'm not the expert on that though. 8-) --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:::The general rule of thumb for fair use is quoting 150 words. On my blog, I don't sweat this and on rare occasions when it becomes an issue I either remove the content, pay a fee for use, or both, but Wikis can exist only because of the willingness to put things under a free license (in this case GNU Free Documentation License 1.2), so in general one should adhere to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use fair use guidelines]. ([http://www.livejournal.com/legal/tos.bml LJ's ToS] state the material is copyright by its author, which is as I expected.)--[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't say that rule of thumb is appropriate here (and I'd be curious of the context from which it is drawn: I'm guessing the publishing industry. "Best practices" frequently become far more normative than they were originally intended to be when it comes to fair use, and don't translate well to other contexts.). Fair use is a defence, not a hard and fast rule, and while this isn't legal advice, I'd suggest that Pleasantville's approach on her own blog is the best: don't sweat it. If someone is upset at being quoted, there are plenty of forms of conciliation that can be used before IP law needs to be invoked. Calling out (linking to) content would be almost certainly fine, copying-and-pasting beyond what's necessary for review and analysis will gradually shade into other issues. Our stuff on Chilling Effects on the [[http://www.chillingeffects.org/fairuse/faq.cgi Fair Use factors]] may be of use. --[[User:Mala|Mala]] 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Copyright attorney / co-admin of the FSFwiki weighing in: 150 is a rule of thumb adopted by some people / organizations, but it is just that -- a voluntary rule of thumb. It in no way reflects the state of the law, which is probably better termed, "as much as needed for a legitimate purpose." Documenting an event and the views, and important language that comes up, is unquestionably important; and so long as individual passages are not unnecessarily included (for instance, to try to or with the effect of supplanting the original) then I think we're okay. In short, it is a fact-specific analysis, and thus we can make our own assessment on a case-by-case basis. No rules of thumb apply. I feel very strongly about this. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

::::I envisioned that whole posts would be pasted in when they were no longer available at their original location but were, at one point, public. Like Teresa's post. Otherwise, readers can click to the original to read the whole thing but stay on the page to see important highlights and get the gist of the discussion. [[User:Ktempest|Tempest]] 06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

=Names and pseudonyms=

I'm really not digging this distinction between the pseudonyms and the driver's license names. Is this necessary, and if so, why?
- vito excalibur
:Yes. Since it is important to know who is speaking, and for half the participants, we don't. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:: This was one the sub-issues raised in the events being documented, and so I personally disagree on the wiki taking a position on it here. --Kate Nepveu

::: There's really no way not to take a position on it: either we separate the names or we don't. -- vito excalibur

:::: I don't see any point in separating people out under different headings. If the person has, themselves, associated their real name with their screen name or pen name, or if it is common public knowledge (as it is for my screen name of badgerbag), list one with the other(s) right next to it and alphabetize under the name you think people are most commonly known by. If there are pages for both identities, link them to each other or make a redirect page. By the way, to make this nifty name/time stamp, click the signature-looking thing in the little toolbar above the edit text input window, and it will magically appear.. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

::::: Yeah, I put that badly. Let me rephrase: I disagree with Kathryn Cramer that the distinction was necessary or useful. And now I see that it's been changed while I was off. -- Kate Nepveu
::::::I think it sort of speaks for itself anyway.--[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: Which "we" is this? I don't need to know what name corresponds to a pseudonym in order to address that pseudonym's arguments. One of the central arguments in the debate was whether it was appropriate to use pseudonyms; outing someone who has explicitly chosen to be anonymous is cheap, and assumes a premise that was actually being debated. --[[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]] 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: Seconded. I'm removing the outings. If you need to know who coffeeandink is, you can look at her *years* of public postings. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In terms of why this is necessary, I ask: Is it widely known, for example, that [[coffeeandink]] used to work at Tor, where she reported to [[pnh]]? (I presume it's not, since she doesn't include that job on her LinkedIn page.) People don't just spring into existence when they make up pseudonyms. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
: Pleasantville, if you think it's so important, why don't you just put that on her wiki page? I don't see why that requires people to be divided into separate categories on this page. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::I did already. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not seeing why it's necessary to know that. coffeeandink's many years of posting about race, cultural appropriation, fandom, writing, internet drama, and massive fail stand firmly behind anything she has said in this particular discussion about Patrick, teresa, or anyone else involved. [[User:Ktempest|Tempest]] 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::: I've just deleted the link to the LinkedIn page in your comment because [[coffeeandink]] does not want her LJ to be Googleable and connected to her full name. I hope we can respect that wish. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: I think that we can put that bit in about employment, which Pleasantville wants to be clear to outline some of the complexities of people's relationships. But I would like us to respect people's choices about pseudonymity as best we can. The need for anonymity is one of the reasons that women's history is hard to document. Let's do the best we can here. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: I was formulating an argument along these lines in the car on the way home, but you did it better. Thank you. --[[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]] 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have my full name on my LJ because it's unique and I don't want it Google-able. Please remove the redirect and the page account.

I feel my first name is sufficiently unusual that people who are looking for the connection can draw it on their own.(request from coffeeandink 2009-02-06T17:38:53)

: Uh, yeeeahh. Speaking of which, does this Wiki have an outing policy? (Rather, an anti-outing policy?) Because if it doesn't, I foresee difficulties with outreach to media fannish communities. I did a quick search and didn't find anything.--[[User:Veejane|Veejane]] 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Good idea. We have [[FSFwiki:Privacy]], but perhaps it needs to be more specific. (Philosophically, I don't bother with pushing policy until it's an issue.) Veejane, do you have any examples? Or would you like to edit the [[FSFwiki:Privacy|current privacy policy]]? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 11:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
This is minor, but related to the overall "real name" discussion. Is there a reason why Elizabeth Bear's full name is after her pen name on the page? It's not as if she is known by her full name (she's been going by Elizabeth Bear and eBear since I've known her, lo these 10 years), nor is knowing her full name of use in the conversation. She's not hiding, it's not a "fan name" (not that I think we necessarily need to connect fan names to "real names"), so why is it necessary? --Tempest

My only statement on the cultural appropriation imbroglio

2009-02-06T04:22:41Z

69.201.143.52: posted copy of original because I think there's a probability it my disappear one day -KTempest

Author and zine Editor [[David Levine]] posted this to LiveJournal on January 26, 2009. The comments were disabled.

==Original Post==

There has been a major Internet kerfuffle going on in the last couple of weeks over the question of cultural appropriation and racism in SF and Fantasy. Many friends of mine on both sides of the debate (and, yes, there are clearly two sides to this debate, despite the complexity of the underlying topic) have been badly hurt. I have been sitting on my hands because it appears that there is no way to enter the slapfight without getting slapped, but I am tired unto death of the ongoing vitriol and character assassination, so I am going to make one statement. Comments are disabled, and I will not respond to comments elsewhere about this post.

This statement is addressed to those on the "anti-racist" side of the debate who have vehemently accused certain white writers and editors of racism or cultural insensitivity.

I have sometimes included characters of color, and of races and cultures other than my own, in my writing. I've been trying to do it more. I recognize that doing so is fraught with peril and I have done my best, through critique and research and asking questions, to get it right. I also recognize that sometimes I will get it wrong, and if I do so in a published work I will take my lumps and try to do better in the future.

However. Your reactions to the written works and Internet posts of my friends who are also trying to do the same have made me question even the attempt. The height and breadth of the heap of spleen that I have seen dumped upon my friends is more than just "lumps" -- it's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. This slapfight, dogpile, shitstorm, whatever you want to call it, has been so severe that I am wondering if I should even try. I've seen those who try, in all good faith, have their heads torn off and thrown back at them, and when they react to this abuse as any normal person would, they are accused of being whiny and oversensitive.

I am working on a story right now where one of the two protagonists is black (the other is an alien). Her blackness is an important part of her character and helps to determine why she does what she does within the story. But lately I've been so worried about getting it wrong, and being vilified in public for it, that I'm considering abandoning the story. What if it gets published and then I see it torn apart in a panel at Wiscon? Will I get a little twinge of concern and angst every time I see one of my non-white writing friends at a convention, wondering whether she's angry at me because of that story? (Or this post?)

I may or may not continue work on this story. Haven't decided yet. Maybe I'll write something safer, something where all the characters are white, or aliens or cartoon characters or disembodied spirits, and I don't have to deal with issues of race and culture. I'll spend my writing time and energy on other issues instead.

This statement is addressed to those on the "anti-racist" side of the debate who have vehemently accused certain white writers and editors of racism or cultural insensitivity:

Is this what you wanted?

==Responses in Other Blogs==

[[Category:Internet drama]] || [[Category:Online discussions]] || [[Category:RaceFail 09]]

I'm taking this about as well as you'd expect.

2009-02-06T04:21:41Z

69.201.143.52:

Author, Blogger and Freelance Editor [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]] wrote the following post on LiveJournal on January 26, 2009. It has subsequently been friends-locked.

==Original Post==
There's been a big LJ thrash recently, one of those maelstroms of online stupidity that take on a life of their own. All kinds of good people got trashed, starting with Elizabeth Bear. Patrick got involved when he posted some consoling remarks to Lisa Spangenberg. In the course of those remarks, he observed that (1.) some people are stupid; and (2.) some people don't argue as well as others. The mob took this personally, and lit into him.

What would you expect from a group that's self-selected for agreement with the statement, "I'm stupid, and I don't argue well"? Things got extremely ugly.

I wonder whether any of those draggletailed loudmouths have noticed that Patrick has now deleted his entire Live Journal, all the way back to the beginning. I doubt they have. They don't strike me as the sort to go back and see the damage they've done. Patrick has as usual taken them seriously; whereas they, knowing themselves better than he does, will have known they weren't worth listening to, and assumed they'd had no effect.

I tender them my congratulations. Whatever good there was in Patrick's LJ is gone now. Those members of the mob who actually wanted someone to listen to them now have one less person to do it. The junior literary critics and wanna-be writers have lost one of the central editors in science fiction from their conversation. And if any of that lot professes to care about Patrick personally -- please understand I'm not rating that probability very high at the moment -- it should be obvious to them what kind of effect they've had.

I know Patrick better than anyone else. This is serious damage. The nithings who've hurt him will have moved on to some other inane topic by now. There's nothing worthwhile I can do to them. It wouldn't take away his hurt -- and besides, they wouldn't understand most of what I had to say to them.

One other issue: when Patrick and I first registered our Live Journal accounts, it never occurred to us to use anything other than our real names -- or rather, our real initials, which are easily traced to us, and which we've used as userIDs in other forums where our identities are or were known. Has it not occurred to the people attacking him that they can say anything, whereas what they say about him will show up whenever someone Googles his name? In terms of public reputation, they're playing with Monopoly money, and he's playing with the real thing.

Some of the people who are using false names are known to him. Some of them are known to or evident to me. In those cases, I've told Patrick who they really are. It's only fair. Just on the other side of the boundary for people whose identities he can figure out are people whom he can almost figure out: this one is a VP student. This one is someone he knows at conventions. This one is a reviewer he's had dealings with. And so forth.

Do any of those safely pseudonymous assholes ever stop to reflect that if he can tell they're a former VP student, but not which one, all former VP students become "people who may be traducing me on LJ at this very moment"? The same thing goes for people he knows from conventions, or wanna-be writers who might submit something to him. Entire classes of people become potential attackers. That's why I identify everyone I can: it exculpates everyone else in that class.

Those of you I can't identify are not off the hook. I suggest that you never seek to take credit under your real name for anything you've done or written under your LJ pseudonym, because it's unlikely that I will ever forget you or what you've done.

Okay, one more last thing: Patrick, being a better person than I am, is a complete sucker for people who say they're sorry. I should hope I know you lot better than that. Still, he sets a lot of store by repentance, and I can't badmouth it too much, because there've been plenty of times when he's forgiven me, too. I know this sounds weird, but I'm mostly telling you about it because I have faith that almost everyone to whom it potentially applies will not be listening.

And so to bed. May we all be better people in the morning

'''Addendum:'''

I moderate as I always have.

'''Further addendum:'''

Apparently some people are taking my remarks as a threat that I will Retaliate Against Them Professionally. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around that [several adjectives deleted] interpretation; but since Kate Nepveu assures me that people are taking it that way, I must needs believe it.

So: no, it wasn't a threat. Anyone who insists that it was is just putting on airs to be interesting.

===Screen Captures and Archives of the Post and Comments===

==Notable Threads In The Post==

===Selective Deletion of Comments===

==Responses In Other Blogs==

==Follow Up Post==

[[Category:Internet drama]] || [[Category:Online discussions]] || [[Category:RaceFail 09]]

I'm taking this about as well as you'd expect.

2009-02-06T04:15:59Z

69.201.143.52: added categories

Author, Blogger and Freelance Editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden wrote the following post on LiveJournal on January 26, 2009. It has subsequently been friends-locked.

==Original Post==
There's been a big LJ thrash recently, one of those maelstroms of online stupidity that take on a life of their own. All kinds of good people got trashed, starting with Elizabeth Bear. Patrick got involved when he posted some consoling remarks to Lisa Spangenberg. In the course of those remarks, he observed that (1.) some people are stupid; and (2.) some people don't argue as well as others. The mob took this personally, and lit into him.

What would you expect from a group that's self-selected for agreement with the statement, "I'm stupid, and I don't argue well"? Things got extremely ugly.

I wonder whether any of those draggletailed loudmouths have noticed that Patrick has now deleted his entire Live Journal, all the way back to the beginning. I doubt they have. They don't strike me as the sort to go back and see the damage they've done. Patrick has as usual taken them seriously; whereas they, knowing themselves better than he does, will have known they weren't worth listening to, and assumed they'd had no effect.

I tender them my congratulations. Whatever good there was in Patrick's LJ is gone now. Those members of the mob who actually wanted someone to listen to them now have one less person to do it. The junior literary critics and wanna-be writers have lost one of the central editors in science fiction from their conversation. And if any of that lot professes to care about Patrick personally -- please understand I'm not rating that probability very high at the moment -- it should be obvious to them what kind of effect they've had.

I know Patrick better than anyone else. This is serious damage. The nithings who've hurt him will have moved on to some other inane topic by now. There's nothing worthwhile I can do to them. It wouldn't take away his hurt -- and besides, they wouldn't understand most of what I had to say to them.

One other issue: when Patrick and I first registered our Live Journal accounts, it never occurred to us to use anything other than our real names -- or rather, our real initials, which are easily traced to us, and which we've used as userIDs in other forums where our identities are or were known. Has it not occurred to the people attacking him that they can say anything, whereas what they say about him will show up whenever someone Googles his name? In terms of public reputation, they're playing with Monopoly money, and he's playing with the real thing.

Some of the people who are using false names are known to him. Some of them are known to or evident to me. In those cases, I've told Patrick who they really are. It's only fair. Just on the other side of the boundary for people whose identities he can figure out are people whom he can almost figure out: this one is a VP student. This one is someone he knows at conventions. This one is a reviewer he's had dealings with. And so forth.

Do any of those safely pseudonymous assholes ever stop to reflect that if he can tell they're a former VP student, but not which one, all former VP students become "people who may be traducing me on LJ at this very moment"? The same thing goes for people he knows from conventions, or wanna-be writers who might submit something to him. Entire classes of people become potential attackers. That's why I identify everyone I can: it exculpates everyone else in that class.

Those of you I can't identify are not off the hook. I suggest that you never seek to take credit under your real name for anything you've done or written under your LJ pseudonym, because it's unlikely that I will ever forget you or what you've done.

Okay, one more last thing: Patrick, being a better person than I am, is a complete sucker for people who say they're sorry. I should hope I know you lot better than that. Still, he sets a lot of store by repentance, and I can't badmouth it too much, because there've been plenty of times when he's forgiven me, too. I know this sounds weird, but I'm mostly telling you about it because I have faith that almost everyone to whom it potentially applies will not be listening.

And so to bed. May we all be better people in the morning

'''Addendum:'''

I moderate as I always have.

'''Further addendum:'''

Apparently some people are taking my remarks as a threat that I will Retaliate Against Them Professionally. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around that [several adjectives deleted] interpretation; but since Kate Nepveu assures me that people are taking it that way, I must needs believe it.

So: no, it wasn't a threat. Anyone who insists that it was is just putting on airs to be interesting.

===Screen Captures and Archives of the Post and Comments===

==Notable Threads In The Post==

===Selective Deletion of Comments===

==Responses In Other Blogs==

==Follow Up Post==

[[Category:Internet drama]] || [[Category:Online discussions]] || [[Category:RaceFail 09]]

I'm taking this about as well as you'd expect.

2009-02-06T04:13:10Z

69.201.143.52: a little formatting work -KTempest

I'm taking this about as well as you'd expect.

2009-02-06T04:10:43Z

69.201.143.52: pasted in original post, set up structure -KTempest

=="I'm taking this about as well as you'd expect" LJ post by Teresa Nielsen Hayden==

===Original Post===
There's been a big LJ thrash recently, one of those maelstroms of online stupidity that take on a life of their own. All kinds of good people got trashed, starting with Elizabeth Bear. Patrick got involved when he posted some consoling remarks to Lisa Spangenberg. In the course of those remarks, he observed that (1.) some people are stupid; and (2.) some people don't argue as well as others. The mob took this personally, and lit into him.

What would you expect from a group that's self-selected for agreement with the statement, "I'm stupid, and I don't argue well"? Things got extremely ugly.

I wonder whether any of those draggletailed loudmouths have noticed that Patrick has now deleted his entire Live Journal, all the way back to the beginning. I doubt they have. They don't strike me as the sort to go back and see the damage they've done. Patrick has as usual taken them seriously; whereas they, knowing themselves better than he does, will have known they weren't worth listening to, and assumed they'd had no effect.

I tender them my congratulations. Whatever good there was in Patrick's LJ is gone now. Those members of the mob who actually wanted someone to listen to them now have one less person to do it. The junior literary critics and wanna-be writers have lost one of the central editors in science fiction from their conversation. And if any of that lot professes to care about Patrick personally -- please understand I'm not rating that probability very high at the moment -- it should be obvious to them what kind of effect they've had.

I know Patrick better than anyone else. This is serious damage. The nithings who've hurt him will have moved on to some other inane topic by now. There's nothing worthwhile I can do to them. It wouldn't take away his hurt -- and besides, they wouldn't understand most of what I had to say to them.

One other issue: when Patrick and I first registered our Live Journal accounts, it never occurred to us to use anything other than our real names -- or rather, our real initials, which are easily traced to us, and which we've used as userIDs in other forums where our identities are or were known. Has it not occurred to the people attacking him that they can say anything, whereas what they say about him will show up whenever someone Googles his name? In terms of public reputation, they're playing with Monopoly money, and he's playing with the real thing.

Some of the people who are using false names are known to him. Some of them are known to or evident to me. In those cases, I've told Patrick who they really are. It's only fair. Just on the other side of the boundary for people whose identities he can figure out are people whom he can almost figure out: this one is a VP student. This one is someone he knows at conventions. This one is a reviewer he's had dealings with. And so forth.

Do any of those safely pseudonymous assholes ever stop to reflect that if he can tell they're a former VP student, but not which one, all former VP students become "people who may be traducing me on LJ at this very moment"? The same thing goes for people he knows from conventions, or wanna-be writers who might submit something to him. Entire classes of people become potential attackers. That's why I identify everyone I can: it exculpates everyone else in that class.

Those of you I can't identify are not off the hook. I suggest that you never seek to take credit under your real name for anything you've done or written under your LJ pseudonym, because it's unlikely that I will ever forget you or what you've done.

Okay, one more last thing: Patrick, being a better person than I am, is a complete sucker for people who say they're sorry. I should hope I know you lot better than that. Still, he sets a lot of store by repentance, and I can't badmouth it too much, because there've been plenty of times when he's forgiven me, too. I know this sounds weird, but I'm mostly telling you about it because I have faith that almost everyone to whom it potentially applies will not be listening.

And so to bed. May we all be better people in the morning

'''Addendum:'''

I moderate as I always have.

'''Further addendum:'''

Apparently some people are taking my remarks as a threat that I will Retaliate Against Them Professionally. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around that [several adjectives deleted] interpretation; but since Kate Nepveu assures me that people are taking it that way, I must needs believe it.

So: no, it wasn't a threat. Anyone who insists that it was is just putting on airs to be interesting.

===Notable Threads In The Post===

====Selective Deletion of Comments====

===Responses In Other Blogs===

===Follow Up Post===

RaceFail 09

2009-02-06T04:05:04Z

69.201.143.52:

RaceFail 09 is a term used to refer to an extended discussion of race and racism in science fiction books, culture, fandom, and criticism that began in January 2009. It has been called by many other names, including the Great Cultural Appropriation Debate of Doom 3 (or 2), and RaceFail 9000.

(Ed. note: A more positive name could highlight the community strength and backup shown... but so far it's mostly been described as "fail".)

== Timeline ==

(There is a good outline of one on avalon's willow's blog -- also see discussion tab for notes on formatting and linking0)

January 8, 2009: [[Another shot at thinking about the Other]] by [[Jay Lake]] on [http://jaylake.livejournal.com/1692287.html LJ]

:This post came a few days before the main source of discussion in Elizabeth Bear's journal, and through it is not stated, may have contributed to her musings. Inspired by a discussion on ''The Edge of the American West'' about "speaking from cultural authority and presumed expertise." Lake expressed disdain for the idea that white writers don't have "standing" to use Aboriginal or First Nations material in their fiction. The comment thread, 78 responses long, was filled with fail. A lot of 101-level thinking.

January 12, 2009: [[whatever you're doing, you're probably wrong.]] by [[Elizabeth Bear]] on [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544111.html LJ]

:The main source of fail. Bear explains how to write The Other.

January 13, 2009: [[I Didn't Dream of Dragons]] by [[deepad]] on [http://deepad.livejournal.com/29656.html LJ]

:Not a direct response to Bear's post, but triggered by it. "...this is more my commentary on the Western, White novels and blogs I have been reading recently, and my experience as an Indian reader."

January 13, 2009: [[Open Letter: To Elizabeth Bear]] by [[Avalon's Willow]] on [http://seeking-avalon.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-letter-to-elizabeth-bear.html Seeking Avalon]

:A response to [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544111.html?thread=30733743&style=mine#t30733743 a thread] in [[whatever you're doing, you're probably wrong.]]

::I'm not calling you a monster. I'm not calling you a racist. But I am calling you clueless and ill worded and more than a touch thoughtless. Your ability to think about things, ''sometimes'', does not erase my pain or lack.

January 14, 2009: [[real magic can never be made by offering up someone else's liver.]] by [[Elizabeth Bear]] on [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544999.html LJ]

:A response to [[Open Letter: To Elizabeth Bear]] in which Bear acknowledges that [[Avalon's Willow]]'s criticism is valid. Comments start out badly ("Over sensitivity to perceived racism tends to result in the nit picking of words and sentence structure.") and go downhill quickly.

January 14, 2009: [[Untitled Post about Avalon's Willow's open letter to Bear]] by [[Sarah Monette]] on [http://truepenny.livejournal.com/625351.html LJ]

:Acknowledges that intent and result do not always match up. Comments devolve into failfest, marked particularly by [[Macallister Stone]] and [[Emma Bull]] invalidating criticism because it isn't academic enough and also because some readers aren't as smart as the writers the criticize.

(some other stuff here)

January 26, 2009: [[I'm taking this about as well as you'd expect.]] by [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]] on [http://tnh.livejournal.com/6256.html LJ] (original is now friends-locked)

:Teresa's response to Patrick's emotional state after been called on his comments. Original post and comments full of fail and including several problematic uses of language.

January 26, 2009: [[My only statement on the cultural appropriation imbroglio]] by [[David Levine]] on [http://davidlevine.livejournal.com/154220.html LJ]

:In response to Levine finding out why [[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]] deleted his LJ. With comments disabled, Levine proceeds to chide the "anti-racist" side for scaring him and other white writers off of writing characters of color and ends with "Is this what you wanted?"

January 27, 2009: [[The last comment that went up before I flocked the previous post.]] by [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]] on [http://tnh.livejournal.com/6434.html LJ]

:A post meant to explain why the previous post disappeared for so many readers. Some conversations and fights continued in the comments here and include failure by Teresa to shut down problem comments and language because the people using said language were on her side.

== Links and external references ==

(We could put in rydra_wong's enormous link list - ask first)

== Participants / people involved ==

* [[rydra_wong]]: compiled lists of links to posts on the subject, sometimes more than daily.
* [[Avalon's Willow]] / Seeking Avalon
* deepad
* [[K. Tempest Bradford]]
* delux_vivens
* zvi_likes_tv
* ciderpress
* vito_excalibur
* chopchica
* coffeeandink
* kate_nepveu
* nojojojo
* marydell
* yeloson
* sparkymonster
* oyceter
* kynn
* Jay Lake
* [[Elizabeth Bear]]
* [[Sarah Monette]]
* mac_stone
* medievalist
* Will Shetterly
* [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]]
* Patrick Nielsen Hayden

== Terminology ==
• [[orcing]] or orking

== See Also ==
* [[Cultural Appropriation (WisCon 30 Panel)‎]]
* [[Cultural Appropriation Revisited (WisCon 31 panel)‎]]
* [[cultural appropriation]]

[[Category:Internet drama]] || [[Category:Online discussions]] || [[Category:RaceFail 09]]

RaceFail 09

2009-02-06T04:04:07Z

69.201.143.52: /* Timeline */ a little extra formatting

Talk:RaceFail 09

2009-02-06T04:02:50Z

69.201.143.52: New page: =Internal Links for Blog Post Titles= I thought it would be a good idea for each of the major blog posts (particularly those that have disappeared from the public Internet) to have its ow...

RaceFail 09

2009-02-06T04:00:08Z

69.201.143.52: /* Timeline */

RaceFail 09 is a term used to refer to an extended discussion of race and racism in science fiction books, culture, fandom, and criticism that began in January 2009. It has been called by many other names, including the Great Cultural Appropriation Debate of Doom 3 (or 2), and RaceFail 9000.

(Ed. note: A more positive name could highlight the community strength and backup shown... but so far it's mostly been described as "fail".)

== Timeline ==

(There is a good outline of one on avalon's willow's blog -- also see discussion tab for notes on formatting and linking0)

January 8, 2009: [[Another shot at thinking about the Other]] by [[Jay Lake]] on [http://jaylake.livejournal.com/1692287.html LJ]

This post came a few days before the main source of discussion in Elizabeth Bear's journal, and through it is not stated, may have contributed to her musings. Inspired by a discussion on ''The Edge of the American West'' about "speaking from cultural authority and presumed expertise." Lake expressed disdain for the idea that white writers don't have "standing" to use Aboriginal or First Nations material in their fiction. The comment thread, 78 responses long, was filled with fail. A lot of 101-level thinking.

January 12, 2009: [[whatever you're doing, you're probably wrong.]] by [[Elizabeth Bear]] on [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544111.html LJ]

The main source of fail. Bear explains how to write The Other.

January 13, 2009: [[I Didn't Dream of Dragons]] by [[deepad]] on [http://deepad.livejournal.com/29656.html LJ]

Not a direct response to Bear's post, but triggered by it. "...this is more my commentary on the Western, White novels and blogs I have been reading recently, and my experience as an Indian reader."

January 13, 2009: [[Open Letter: To Elizabeth Bear]] by [[Avalon's Willow]] on [http://seeking-avalon.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-letter-to-elizabeth-bear.html Seeking Avalon]

A response to [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544111.html?thread=30733743&style=mine#t30733743 a thread] in [[whatever you're doing, you're probably wrong.]]

:I'm not calling you a monster. I'm not calling you a racist. But I am calling you clueless and ill worded and more than a touch thoughtless. Your ability to think about things, ''sometimes'', does not erase my pain or lack.

January 14, 2009: [[real magic can never be made by offering up someone else's liver.]] by [[Elizabeth Bear]] on [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544999.html LJ]

A response to [[Open Letter: To Elizabeth Bear]] in which Bear acknowledges that [[Avalon's Willow]]'s criticism is valid. Comments start out badly ("Over sensitivity to perceived racism tends to result in the nit picking of words and sentence structure.") and go downhill quickly.

January 14, 2009: [[Untitled Post about Avalon's Willow's open letter to Bear]] by [[Sarah Monette]] on [http://truepenny.livejournal.com/625351.html LJ]

Acknowledges that intent and result do not always match up. Comments devolve into failfest, marked particularly by [[Macallister Stone]] and [[Emma Bull]] invalidating criticism because it isn't academic enough and also because some readers aren't as smart as the writers the criticize.

(some other stuff here)

January 26, 2009: [[I'm taking this about as well as you'd expect.]] by [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]] on [http://tnh.livejournal.com/6256.html LJ] (original is now friends-locked)

Teresa's response to Patrick's emotional state after been called on his comments. Original post and comments full of fail and including several problematic uses of language.

January 26, 2009: [[My only statement on the cultural appropriation imbroglio]] by [[David Levine]] on [http://davidlevine.livejournal.com/154220.html LJ]

In response to Levine finding out why [[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]] deleted his LJ. With comments disabled, Levine proceeds to chide the "anti-racist" side for scaring him and other white writers off of writing characters of color and ends with "Is this what you wanted?"

January 27, 2009: [[The last comment that went up before I flocked the previous post.]] by [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]] on [http://tnh.livejournal.com/6434.html LJ]

A post meant to explain why the previous post disappeared for so many readers. Some conversations and fights continued in the comments here and include failure by Teresa to shut down problem comments and language because the people using said language were on her side.

== Links and external references ==

(We could put in rydra_wong's enormous link list - ask first)

== Participants / people involved ==

* [[rydra_wong]]: compiled lists of links to posts on the subject, sometimes more than daily.
* [[Avalon's Willow]] / Seeking Avalon
* deepad
* [[K. Tempest Bradford]]
* delux_vivens
* zvi_likes_tv
* ciderpress
* vito_excalibur
* chopchica
* coffeeandink
* kate_nepveu
* nojojojo
* marydell
* yeloson
* sparkymonster
* oyceter
* kynn
* Jay Lake
* [[Elizabeth Bear]]
* [[Sarah Monette]]
* mac_stone
* medievalist
* Will Shetterly
* [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]]
* Patrick Nielsen Hayden

== Terminology ==
• [[orcing]] or orking

== See Also ==
* [[Cultural Appropriation (WisCon 30 Panel)‎]]
* [[Cultural Appropriation Revisited (WisCon 31 panel)‎]]
* [[cultural appropriation]]

[[Category:Internet drama]] || [[Category:Online discussions]]

RaceFail 09

2009-02-06T03:59:08Z

69.201.143.52: Added initial timeline then skipped down to David Levine and TNH -- k tempest

RaceFail 09 is a term used to refer to an extended discussion of race and racism in science fiction books, culture, fandom, and criticism that began in January 2009. It has been called by many other names, including the Great Cultural Appropriation Debate of Doom 3 (or 2), and RaceFail 9000.

(Ed. note: A more positive name could highlight the community strength and backup shown... but so far it's mostly been described as "fail".)

== Timeline ==

(There is a good outline of one on avalon's willow's blog)

January 8, 2009: [[Another shot at thinking about the Other]] by [[Jay Lake]] on [http://jaylake.livejournal.com/1692287.html LJ]

This post came a few days before the main source of discussion in Elizabeth Bear's journal, and through it is not stated, may have contributed to her musings. Inspired by a discussion on ''The Edge of the American West'' about "speaking from cultural authority and presumed expertise." Lake expressed disdain for the idea that white writers don't have "standing" to use Aboriginal or First Nations material in their fiction. The comment thread, 78 responses long, was filled with fail. A lot of 101-level thinking.

January 12, 2009: [[whatever you're doing, you're probably wrong.]] by [[Elizabeth Bear]] on [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544111.html LJ]

The main source of fail. Bear explains how to write The Other.

January 13, 2009: [[I Didn't Dream of Dragons]] by [[deepad]] on [http://deepad.livejournal.com/29656.html LJ]

Not a direct response to Bear's post, but triggered by it. "...this is more my commentary on the Western, White novels and blogs I have been reading recently, and my experience as an Indian reader."

January 13, 2009: [[Open Letter: To Elizabeth Bear]] by [[Avalon's Willow]] on [http://seeking-avalon.blogspot.com/2009/01/open-letter-to-elizabeth-bear.html Seeking Avalon]

A response to [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544111.html?thread=30733743&style=mine#t30733743 a thread] in [[whatever you're doing, you're probably wrong.]]

:I'm not calling you a monster. I'm not calling you a racist. But I am calling you clueless and ill worded and more than a touch thoughtless. Your ability to think about things, ''sometimes'', does not erase my pain or lack.

January 14, 2009: [[real magic can never be made by offering up someone else's liver.]] by [[Elizabeth Bear]] on [http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544999.html LJ]

A response to [[Open Letter: To Elizabeth Bear]] in which Bear acknowledges that [[Avalon's Willow]]'s criticism is valid. Comments start out badly ("Over sensitivity to perceived racism tends to result in the nit picking of words and sentence structure.") and go downhill quickly.

January 14, 2009: [[Untitled Post about Avalon's Willow's open letter to Bear]] by [[Sarah Monette]] on [http://truepenny.livejournal.com/625351.html LJ]

Acknowledges that intent and result do not always match up. Comments devolve into failfest, marked particularly by [[Macallister Stone]] and [[Emma Bull]] invalidating criticism because it isn't academic enough and also because some readers aren't as smart as the writers the criticize.

(some other stuff here)

January 26, 2009: [[I'm taking this about as well as you'd expect.]] by [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]] on [http://tnh.livejournal.com/6256.html LJ] (original is now friends-locked)

Teresa's response to Patrick's emotional state after been called on his comments. Original post and comments full of fail and including several problematic uses of language.

January 26, 2009: [[My only statement on the cultural appropriation imbroglio]] by [[David Levine]] on [http://davidlevine.livejournal.com/154220.html LJ]

In response to Levine finding out why [[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]] deleted his LJ. With comments disabled, Levine proceeds to chide the "anti-racist" side for scaring him and other white writers off of writing characters of color and ends with "Is this what you wanted?"

January 27, 2009: [[The last comment that went up before I flocked the previous post.]] by [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]] on [http://tnh.livejournal.com/6434.html LJ]

A post meant to explain why the previous post disappeared for so many readers. Some conversations and fights continued in the comments here and include failure by Teresa to shut down problem comments and language because the people using said language were on her side.

== Links and external references ==

(We could put in rydra_wong's enormous link list - ask first)

== Participants / people involved ==

* [[rydra_wong]]: compiled lists of links to posts on the subject, sometimes more than daily.
* [[Avalon's Willow]] / Seeking Avalon
* deepad
* [[K. Tempest Bradford]]
* delux_vivens
* zvi_likes_tv
* ciderpress
* vito_excalibur
* chopchica
* coffeeandink
* kate_nepveu
* nojojojo
* marydell
* yeloson
* sparkymonster
* oyceter
* kynn
* Jay Lake
* [[Elizabeth Bear]]
* [[Sarah Monette]]
* mac_stone
* medievalist
* Will Shetterly
* [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]]
* Patrick Nielsen Hayden

== Terminology ==
• [[orcing]] or orking

== See Also ==
* [[Cultural Appropriation (WisCon 30 Panel)‎]]
* [[Cultural Appropriation Revisited (WisCon 31 panel)‎]]
* [[cultural appropriation]]

[[Category:Internet drama]] || [[Category:Online discussions]]

K. Tempest Bradford

2009-01-24T22:42:58Z

69.201.143.52: /* Editorial Positions */

{{WOC}}

'''K. Tempest Bradford''', also known as just Tempest, is an African-American speculative fiction writer born in Cincinnati, Ohio, currently residing in New York, NY. She attended New York University’s Gallatin School for Individualized Study where she had the opportunity to write and produce several plays and performance pieces (under the name K. T. Bradford) in Off-Broadway and Off-Off-Broadway spaces.

Since 2000 she’s concentrated on fiction and in 2003 she attended the [[Clarion West]] Writers Workshop. Prior to that was a member of the [[OWW]] (SF&F Online Writing Workshop) for many years. She's currently a member of the [[Altered Fluid]] and [[Black Beans]] writing groups and co-coordinates the Ohayo Mountain Retreat in New York State.

Bradford is the main writer behind the [[Angry Black Woman blog]].

== Works ==

*"[http://strangehorizons.com/2008/20081117/forgiveness-f.shtml Until Forgiveness Comes]" in [[Strange Horizons]], 2008
*"Black Feather" in Interfictions, 2007.
*"The Seventh Reflection" in Thou Shalt Not... a horror and dark fantasy anthology, 2006.
*"Change of Life" in [[Farthing]], 2006.
*"Hard Rain" in [[Farthing]], 2006.
*"Why I Don't Drink Anymore" (as Finley Larkin) in Abyss & Apex, 2003.
*"Elf Aware" (as Finley Larkin) in Cafe Irreal, 2002.
*"What We Make Of It" (as K T Bradford) in Peridot Books, 2000.

== Editorial Positions ==

*Managing Editor, [[Fantasy Magazine]] (current)
*Assistant Editor, Sybil's Garage #5
*Editor, ForteanBureau.com, 2001 - 2006
*Associate Editor, PeridotBooks.com, 2000 - 2006

== Affiliations ==
*[[The Carl Brandon Society]]
*[[The Interstitial Arts Foundation]]

== Projects ==

*[http://sfbookswap.wordpress.com/ SFBookswap]
*[http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/ The Angry Black Woman]

== External Sources ==
*http://tempest.fluidartist.com/
*http://ktempest.livejournal.com/
*http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/

[[Category:Bloggers]]
[[Category:Writers]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:FSFwikians]]
[[Category:1978 births]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bradford, K. Tempest}}

K. Tempest Bradford

2009-01-24T22:42:42Z

69.201.143.52: /* Works */

{{WOC}}

'''K. Tempest Bradford''', also known as just Tempest, is an African-American speculative fiction writer born in Cincinnati, Ohio, currently residing in New York, NY. She attended New York University’s Gallatin School for Individualized Study where she had the opportunity to write and produce several plays and performance pieces (under the name K. T. Bradford) in Off-Broadway and Off-Off-Broadway spaces.

Since 2000 she’s concentrated on fiction and in 2003 she attended the [[Clarion West]] Writers Workshop. Prior to that was a member of the [[OWW]] (SF&F Online Writing Workshop) for many years. She's currently a member of the [[Altered Fluid]] and [[Black Beans]] writing groups and co-coordinates the Ohayo Mountain Retreat in New York State.

Bradford is the main writer behind the [[Angry Black Woman blog]].

== Works ==

*"[http://strangehorizons.com/2008/20081117/forgiveness-f.shtml Until Forgiveness Comes]" in [[Strange Horizons]], 2008
*"Black Feather" in Interfictions, 2007.
*"The Seventh Reflection" in Thou Shalt Not... a horror and dark fantasy anthology, 2006.
*"Change of Life" in [[Farthing]], 2006.
*"Hard Rain" in [[Farthing]], 2006.
*"Why I Don't Drink Anymore" (as Finley Larkin) in Abyss & Apex, 2003.
*"Elf Aware" (as Finley Larkin) in Cafe Irreal, 2002.
*"What We Make Of It" (as K T Bradford) in Peridot Books, 2000.

== Editorial Positions ==

*Non-Fiction Editor, [[Fantasy Magazine]] (current)
*Assistant Editor, Sybil's Garage #5
*Editor, ForteanBureau.com, 2001 - 2006
*Associate Editor, PeridotBooks.com, 2000 - 2006

== Affiliations ==
*[[The Carl Brandon Society]]
*[[The Interstitial Arts Foundation]]

== Projects ==

*[http://sfbookswap.wordpress.com/ SFBookswap]
*[http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/ The Angry Black Woman]

== External Sources ==
*http://tempest.fluidartist.com/
*http://ktempest.livejournal.com/
*http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/

[[Category:Bloggers]]
[[Category:Writers]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:FSFwikians]]
[[Category:1978 births]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bradford, K. Tempest}}