No reason

[james_davis_nicoll]

Assume you know someone who is trying to maintain the illusion that no one is actively trying to preserve SF as a male dominated field. What websites would you advise them to avoid?

Comments

[montoya.livejournal.com]

First, I would have to successfully parse that sentence...

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Fine, I will go fix it.

[tceisele.livejournal.com]

Same problem here. I *think* that it simplifies to:

"What websites are most blatantly trying to preserve SF as a male-dominated field?"

Is that what you meant?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[hattifattener]

I think a level of indirection is allowed by the question: "what websites offer the most convincing evidence that someone (anyone, not just the website's author) is actively trying to preserve SF as a male dominated field?".

Some begged questions in there, of course...

[sanguinity]

I struggled, too.

I think it says: "If someone is trying to maintain the illusion that no one is actively trying to preserve SF as a male-dominated field, what websites would s/he need to avoid in order to maintain said illusion?"

But I'm not absolutely sure. Especially since the hypothetical-me's motivations and goals for building the list are unstated.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Livejournal!



Did I get it right?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

To quote my math teacher when I used "it is intuitively obvious" as a proof on a math test, don't try that on the final.

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

When I was in school the preferred phrase was, "It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer." This led to efforts to find a way to determine, in any given situation, who was the most casual observer. I don't think we ever found a general solution to the problem.

[azurelunatic]

Please cite specific subdomains. ;)

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I would suggest they give the Asimov's message boards a miss.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

That was the first one that came to mind, actually.

[soon_lee]

It's much saner* there these days.

*For given values of 'sane'.

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

Someone is, then? I'm obviously out of it.

[abidemi.livejournal.com]

Forget websites--they need to start by ignoring book covers.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm sure *someone* is. Probably even someone who works in a position of influence in the field.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the message boards at Asimov's matter much; are the people saying such things people with any control over any of the field? Or just opinionated readers?

Book covers are a useful suggestion; though there's the issue of intent vs. unconscious effect, and the issue of commercial conservatism (appealing to existing readers). I know hordes of men and women who read SF and fantasy a lot who think the covers mostly suck, but of course the dedicated existing readers are not the ones the covers are designed to appeal to, since we buy on other bases.

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

of course the dedicated existing readers are not the ones the covers are designed to appeal to, since we buy on other bases.

I must admit that there are covers which have lured me into buying books. Some of them were even good books.

[montedavis.livejournal.com]

we buy on other bases

ITYMisspelled "biases"

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I was aiming for the plural of "basis", actually; which is only *rhetorically* "biases" :-).

[redbird]

If I'm looking for new sf or fantasy to read, I might be lured by book covers, if I don't have a specific book in mind/the bookstore doesn't have anything by an author I'm currently looking for.

People who don't read in the genre are likely to walk right past that section of the store.