First, this was kind of a minor point for me, correcting what I saw as a mischaracterization of someone else’s argument. I’m happy to let it drop, except that I’ve got a totally irritating negative trait of being unwilling to be mocked for dropping an argument; if you can agree that I’m letting it drop because of apathy rather than Secretly Knowing You’re Right, I’m happy to do so. (I still think I’m right).
Second, if it’s important to continue this point, I still think we’re talking past each other, and perhaps you could provide a set of stats that if hypothetically correct would persuade you that I was right. I think you’re not understanding what I’m saying, but I’m not clear on what you think I’m saying, and some numbers would help.
Third, again if it’s important to continue this point, it’s probably better for Great Debates. We’re agreed on the fundamental point, which is that what MZB did was appalling and inexcusable, and that it taints her work for us (although this is an easy point for me, since I never cared for her–if Daniel Abraham or China Mieville or Ursula Le Guin came out as a rapist, I’d feel the same way, but I’d be a lot more troubled by it).
Only if they knew of the crime at the time they bestowed the award. Were they aware of it? If you can provide information on that I would be interested in adding it to my file.
Well, yes, as I have continually stated it is all wrong. Murder is wrong, too, but we have different degrees of that, and rape of adults can have aggravating circumstances and so forth. I’m not sure why this is an alien concept.
Saying raping toddlers is worse than raping tweens does NOT mean that somehow raping anyone is OK. It’s not. It never is. Raping an adult is bad, raping a teen or tween is worse, and raping a toddler is even more depraved. As the crime gets worse the penalties should get harsher and the condemnation of the crime more strident.
All this proves is that you haven’t read enough, if you think Breen wasn’t above molesting toddlers - the bit about him training a 3 year old girl to strip on command, then be masturbated in front of other adults, including her parents, for instance…
I would oppose taking back the award, I’d advocate that in every mention of the award MZB should be referred to as Marion Zimmer Bradley the child rapist. She DID get the award, it’s a matter of historical fact, just point out her shame along with her fame. Certainly, if and when I see MZB mentioned on message boards, I will not hesitate that she was a child rapist if no one has bothered to do prior to me.
But awards get revoked all the time, too, and the reasons for it are noted. This isn’t some milestone, like a world record or the like (although those get revoked all the time too), this is a pat on the back from a genre group. Backs can be unpatted easily enough.
Edit: just saw your last post, but I was already pulling up these cites, and I think they’re interesting. I’ll let it go now, although if you want to respond to these cites, I’ll let it go after your response :).
Note that the latter study suggest there’s “little empirical evidence” for a “cycle of abuse.” They follow that up by saying, "Hence, it is of considerable social, clinical and theoretical importance to ascertain to what extent perpetrators of sexual abuse have themselves been victims; also, if there is a link, to explore the underlying psychodynamics. " IOW, they’re looking for that evidence.
As I now understand it, the evidence for the cycle of abuse is far from airtight, but what is clear is that male victims of child sexual abuse commit abuse at a higher rate than the general population (albeit still a minority of victims commit the abuse, it should be repeated).
I have no idea whether they knew of MZB’s child rape at the time, my point is, to the extent that they still simply honor her, they are committing a shameful act. It’s like saying nice things about Adolf Hitler because he loved dogs. MZB wrote fantasies a lot of people enjoyed, as I said before, let her award stand, but also note that she was a child rapist as well. You cannot simple honor her any more, given the horror of her crimes.
I stopped by B&N about a week ago, and this was being displayed among the other new mass market paperbacks. I had no idea there were still new Darkover books being written and sold, but there are.
How is that rewriting history? They don’t need to deny that the award was given; all they need to do is to add the word “revoked” beside the award, along with a brief explanation and/or a link to a long explanation for the revocation. I think it’d be a great idea.
You are arguing that there’s a serious problem with false rape claims? If a woman tells you she’s been raped, you respond by asking for collaborating witnesses? I’m not talking about court cases here, just your usual response to claims of sexual abuse.
You’ve tied yourself up in utterly awful knots in a case you clearly didn’t look into all that thoroughly. I’m a complete stranger to the sci-fi realm and I found all the relevant documents with no problem.
I’m happier with those cites, but just to note that we’ve been discussing adult abusers of kids, so the rates for juvenile sex offenders don’t signify too much - there may be drop-off factors. But the second cite proves your point better. I think more studies need to be done to say for sure, though.
I still read and enjoy Delany’s work, too, although I am also aware of his views that I find objectionable.
OK, I can agree to that IF the it’s noted the award was granted for her work AND why it was revoked. It preserves the truth.
So long as the works continue to remain available for those who want to read them I can live with their diminished popularity. I do object to the notion that liking a work of fiction somehow calls the reader’s morality into question.
Nothing wrong with analyzing or discussing any of that.
And that’s why I asked if there’s a morality requirement for the Fantasy award. Maybe there should be, for “lifetime achievement awards”, so if someone has done more harm than good overall they won’t be handed out to such people. If this incident makes such a caveat routine for such awards then that is some tiny particle of improvement to come out of the whole swamp.
Me, too. But it’s up to the Greyland siblings to pursue that or not.
I was quite pleased when the rights and royalties from OJ Simpson’s most recent book was awarded to the Goldman family. Of course, there is now the on-going disupte between the Goldmans and the Browns over whether to purse movie/TV rights in attempt to extract more out of those rights which is yet another illustration of how a crime causes continuing pain and misery down the line.
I realize that you probably know this, MrDibble, but for the benefit of the “Hey, if they look old enough, rape’s just not that big of a thing–besides MZB is totes this great writer” contingent
The following was published the year before Bradley chose to marry Breen (although they were involved) so…it’s not like she found herself surprised by his kiddie raping years after they were wed.
From the original 1963 “The Great Breen Boondoggle” letter: (Warning: gross)
Luckily, Bradley was there to stand by her man and support him in his desire for fresh meat and to help to force the convention to let him come anyway. Whatta woman!
Just for the record I’m OK with that. Presumably, you would also be able to provide factual evidence in case anyone asks for it as well. I think having the fame and shame travel in tandem would be a good tactic.
I’m cool with that.