Few things mark you as a schmuck faster than attacking a master for being “old.”
You can have great differences with a master. You can argue bitterly with a master. You can even think a master is an asshole.
You may contend with a master on the basis of words and deeds.
But the second you start using his age and past accomplishments as a negative in your rhetoric, you mark yourself as a non-entity, a jackass, a pipsqueak, an ant shouting at a monument.
This sin, currently in evidence among some supporters of the Sad Puppies, is not exclusive to either end of the political spectrum.
Fans from the left wing thought they had reason to be upset at Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg, a couple of years back, and though it was arguable that they had a case, it was downright appalling how many of them thought they were issuing slammers when they complained that these greats hailed from before their time, or were “old and irrelevant,” or, tellingly, “I never even heard of them!”
That controversy provided fuel for this current sad puppy brouhaha where among other things some fans from the right wing are slamming David Gerrold for being old and senile and irrelevant and all those things he most assuredly is not.
Left-leaning myself, I have always been consistent on this one point.
Divorcing both controversies from whatever the participants think they’re complaining about, any fans who abused Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg for their vintage and any fans who abuse David Gerrold for his vintage are, by precise measurement, worthless snots who have jettisoned their own claim to respect.
Period.
I don’t care what you believe in.
I don’t care what you think you’re fighting for.
By saying those particular things, you have established yourself as a know-nothing and an idiot.
Attacking a master because you’ve “never heard of him” is evidence that an idiot’s view of reality: that nothing of consequence exists unless you happen to have noticed it.
And attacking a master because, in your blinkered view, he hasn’t done anything of value lately is the act of an entitled blowhard who thinks artists should be treated as kitchen appliances, kept only as long as they keep making golden-brown waffles.
Harlan Ellison, who has been the recipient of some of this, has slowed down in recent decades, in no small part because of hideous health problems — and I mean hideous; I’ve spoken to him when he could barely speak, and just for him to bounce back from that is evidence of heroic will. Although he is still producing enough for ten men half his age, I do think it arguable that his last great-with-a-capital-g story was years ago. So what? He has done enough to fuel twenty lifetimes; he did that by 1980. Anything else he gave us, past that point, is beyond the call of duty. Much of what came after that date was great. The chances that he’ll pull out another masterpiece are far from zero, and even if he doesn’t, he doesn’t owe us one.
And indeed, on the subject of Harlan, in particular, I reiterate a dream that I had about him, a bunch of years back: a dream where I and writers from the generations before mine and after mine were stuck on the ground floor of a hotel where the Nebulas were being held. Except that the makers of the hotel had idiotically forgotten to construct a method of reaching that second floor, ten feet off the ground. There were no stairs, no elevators. We tried to construct a human pyramid to get up there. Collapse! We tried to make a ladder out of available furniture. Collapse! We couldn’t get up there. But we had to! Our careers were up there! Then a familiar gravelly voice sounded from the back of the crowd. “Geez, Castro, do I have to do everything for you?” And we all made it to that second floor, one at a time, standing on Harlan Ellison’s shoulders.
You don’t snigger at Muhammad Ali because you could probably beat him up now. You don’t mock Paul McCartney because the Beatles were over a lifetime ago. You don’t laugh at those who landmark works were produced before you were born.
You who have no monuments built to you, or built by you, don’t use antiquity as a pejorative, because those monuments were critical to the landscape that you now walk.
You spew your derision on this point only at the risk of proving yourself a total idiot.
And then there’s the thing you may not have considered.
Take David in particular. You who make jokes about all his accomplishments being in the dead past should, honestly, do a little research first. Honestly. Of late, I have had the pleasure of becoming one of his first readers. I suggested some tinkering on a story called “Entanglements,” just published in F & SF, which is the flip side of his autobiographical “The Martian Child,” and digs raw into David’s life, and his values, with an honesty that must have hurt in the telling. I will shortly be reading his new novel, a volume squarely within the sub-genre those of you attacking him like to say you want. He is not a creature of the dead past. He is a still very much living talent, building his monument faster than you, the ants at its base, can carry away the little pebbles.
You are wrong. And worse than wrong: you are wrong at the top of your lungs. You are so wrong that no GPS device can point you back in the direction of right. You are so wrong that nothing else you say can possibly be taken seriously.
You are so wrong that you need to shut up for a long, long time.
Comment By: Michael Rapoport
June 2nd, 2015 at 10:17 am
Yes, absolutely. The flip side of those complaints, of course, is that there are so many still around – like Harlan, like David – continuing to do terrific work. This was a feature I saw last year on a group of such folks, and it’s stuck with me: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/23/magazine/old-masters-at-top-of-their-game.html?_r=0
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
June 2nd, 2015 at 10:17 am
David Gerrold, Mike Resnick, Steven Barber
Comment By: Steven Barber
June 2nd, 2015 at 10:17 am
If it were possible to hit Like multiple times and have it show, I would do so. Spot on and exactly correct. David — and I write this not because he’ll likely see it but because this is truth – is one of the best and most consistent writers in the genre (and outside). I actually Laughed Out Loud when I read your comment that the Sad Puppies were assailing him. It’s absurd, as you far more eloquently noted.
More importanly, the assertion from “young pups” that a “master” is irrelevant shows their own narrow-mindedness. Asserting that either David or Harlan are complacent or unproductive in their silver years simply demonstrates the lack of perception on the part of the Pups.
But perhaps the most telling and informative is the phrase “I never heard of him”. That phrase alone, regardless of whomever may be using it, is an admission of ignorance.
And that is all I need to know about the person who posted whatever it was that got you going. Excellent essay and commentary, as per usual.
Comment By: Steven Barber
June 2nd, 2015 at 10:17 am
Addendum: I would shiver at the thought of any one of these punks running into Harlan at this point. Even from his reduced physical capacity he would ensure their backsides were royally and unforgettably kicked. He even threatened to show up at the Hugos should David need assistance in smacking anyone about. “David wouldn’t do it, but *I* would”.
Comment By: Paul Guay
June 2nd, 2015 at 3:17 pm
Adam, I disagree with almost every political thought I’ve ever seen you express on FB… but I couldn’t agree more about this. Plus you wrote it really, really well. Thank you.
Comment By: David Vineyard
June 2nd, 2015 at 3:17 pm
What cannot be argued has to be ridiculed, dfaced, or torn down to bring it to the level of the ants . Anything beyond them or greater than their potential to accomplish must be brought to their miniscule level.
Comment By: Gill Avila
June 2nd, 2015 at 10:19 pm
This is what “accolade” means.
Comment By: David Gerrold
June 3rd, 2015 at 12:17 pm
So I have trouble breaking through the cobwebs when I stand up. Big deal. At least I’m still standing.
Comment By: mk41
June 5th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
This strikes me as a bit incoherent. Maybe necessarily so since you don’t quote the people you are responding to. I have a hard time imagining anyone attacking anyone else _because_ they have never heard of him (it’s a bit impossible actually). Or _because_ they’re old. Maybe people do that.
It seems more plausible to me, that people attack the notion they should venerate opinions because of past accomplishments or age. Which is a sensible response to a fallacious argument from authority. The form that response takes may be inappropriate, uncalled for, even rude and that deserves to be pointed out. At the same we could all at times do with a more charitable reading of our statements. The text above is a prime example, considering the insults that are hurled at people for individual remarks that may well have been merely careless.
“Old” is easily dismissed as an argument, we all will be old at some point. But what if what’s really meant is “failed to keep himself informed of the science on the issue, the topics currently discussed, the agreements reached & is way behind everyone else & still expects to be treated like a regular or even special participant”. Yes, you get that in young people too and shortening that attitude to “old” is factually wrong and ageist. At the same time, it’s not at all uncommon in older people especially those of former or current high status.
Resnick and Malzberg are a prime example and in their response to critics they called them “liberal facists” and amply demonstrated that they were either too dumb to understand the concept of “censorship” or too dumb/proud to know they had to look it up. That doesn’t make it right to call them “old” as an insult or use that as an argument. But I don’t think that was the biggest problem in the debate.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
June 5th, 2015 at 8:02 pm
See, this is what comes from addressing the argument you think you’re having, not the proposition that is actually being advanced.
From the first three grafs of my post:
“You can have great differences with a master. You can argue bitterly with a master. You can even think a master is an asshole.
You may contend with a master on the basis of words and deeds.”
Where, there, did I say that Resnick and Malzberg did not step on their dicks during that argument? Or that being attacked on the basis of age was the “biggest problem” in their debate?
Also: if you have never seen, “I never even heard of {so and so} as a pejorative, then you have lived a sheltered life. During the Resnick/Malzberg issue, I lost count of the number of the people who said that about both, and since the Sad Puppy nonsense began, I have heard a number using it against David. It is very possible; you simply have to hear someone referred to as an authority, and address them on the basis of your own lack of prior knowledge. It’s the specific form of argument I attack, not any particular issue.
Comment By: mk41
June 5th, 2015 at 8:58 pm
I read the first paragraphs carefully, several times. Because I was trying to discern what you took issue with once all the things you allowed for were taken into account.
“Were, there, did I say … their debate?” You never said that. I never said you said that.
The latter part … I’m not sure I follow. Let me try to respond to what I think you said, which won’t necessarily be what you meant.
– It’s quite possible I failed to parse “I’ve never heard of X” as an argument in the past. Maybe someone said that, meant it as an argument and I misinterpreted that as mere factual information. Because it isn’t a valid argument.
Then again, are you sure it was meant to be an argument and not just information for context? (Like, if I said “I’d never heard of Vox Day before, he’s the racist owner of a small Finish publishing house no one had ever heard of before.” which isn’t an argument at all, but information about what I know and some context for the 3rd party to whom I’d say that. My assessment of his obscurity is necessarily subjective.)
– When we’re talking about someone referred as an authority things get even more complicated: Are we dealing with an argument from authority? Then the counter is as (in)valid as the original argument. And on topic.
– If the reference is to special knowledge or experience then yes, your case is pretty clear and we agree. It has nothing to do with that person being a “master” however. It applies whenever special knowledge is rejected for no good reason
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
June 6th, 2015 at 5:50 am
This is being gnashed more than it needs to be.
But fine. Omitting the value judgment “master” from the equation, as to me it simply renders the offense more galling and to you it brings in “arguing from authority,” the substance is this.
You don’t employ a man’s vintage as a pejorative.
You don’t use your own lack of knowledge of the man’s life accomplishments as negation of those accomplishments.
That’s the substance of it.
And yes, in the specific behavior I am referencing, it was never a case of, “I have not heard of this person before, can you possibly tell me what he’s done?”, which is fine. Itwas, “He can’t be all that important, because I have never heard of him. One is a request for more information. One is the declaration that your current level of information defines what is worth knowing. The latter is revolting, and I have seen it in practice many times, against many personalities whose first graying hairs are decades old.
Comment By: Le Mutt d’Author 6/2 | File 770
September 13th, 2018 at 6:57 am
[…] Open Letter To The Ants At the Base Of The Monument – June 2 […]