At first glance,
there might seem to be no connection between science fiction and fantasy “fandom”
and the Just Third Way. Yes, the ideas
of the Just Third Way are forward-looking, futuristic, and could easily be
integrated into visions of future, fantastic, or alternative societies and
worlds. They might even form the core
around which science fiction and fantasy epics could be written — Tolkien may
have to look to his laurels in the face of the new wave of Just Third Way
writers!
But fandom? That’s just for people wanting to have a
little fun and meet with like-minded others, discuss subjects that bore one’s
spouse, children, significant other, or (especially) co-workers and associates
to tears, and meet and greet the writers, actors, and others who have given us so
much pleasure . . . right?
Wrong. Maybe that’s what fandom means to most
people, but there are some to whom it is deadly serious business. It’s not entertainment or recreation, it’s
how they make their living and even seek to remake society into their own image
and likeness . . . and that “image and likeness” seems to have been taken over
by individuals and groups vaguely described as “liberal,” to the detriment of
those even more loosely labeled “conservative.”
This came up because a number of science fiction and
fantasy writers have been under “attack” for being “too conservative.” The beauty of the Just Third Way, of course,
is that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are not really applicable. What matters are sound principles and
results, not personalities. We have, for
example, people who are “Pro-Trump” and others who are, uh, not Pro-Trump, but
(except for some exciting discussions) we all work together towards a common
goal, something everyone needs to think about.
The situation has
been coming to a boil for a while now.
Briefly (but hopefully accurately) — for our readers for the most part
don’t give any part of a rat’s anatomy about squabbles in science fiction and
fantasy fandom — a group of “conservative” science fiction and fantasy writers
alleged a few years ago that awards seemed to be going almost exclusively to
writers and others of a more “liberal” persuasion.
 |
| Larry Correia |
For example, Larry Correia, a New York Times bestselling writer whose “Monster
Hunters” books are, uh, bestsellers (and whose fictional characterization
of R. Buckminster Fuller in another series is hilariously spot-on), seems to
vanish mysteriously when it comes to handing out awards . . . sort of like the
hundreds of thousands of participants in the annual March for Life suddenly
drop off the radar when they reach Washington, D.C. Briefly reviewing his online material, Larry
comes across as a “conservative” politically, fiscally, and (gasp) religiously,
which — so it has been alleged — explains why this six-foot-plus, gun-totin’,
CPA (got our vote right there), NYT bestseller (did we mention he has made the New York Times bestseller list?) becomes
something of a de facto literary
wallflower when the gods of fandom convene.
 |
| Monster Hunter's patch. Upside down, it's a turtle. |
Sidebar: If you don’t like horror-comedy-fantasy-action epics that
don’t stint on word length and are actually entertaining, you will absolutely
hate Correia’s “Monster Hunter” books. (Admittedly,
we almost didn’t buy the first one because we generally dislike horror . . .
but this is pretty unhorrible horror.)
There has also
been something of a stink about The Last Closet, an exposé written by Moira Greyland Peat,
daughter of noted author Marion Zimmer Bradley and numismatist and writer Walter
Breen. Peat’s book chronicles a
sickening record of abuse pervading parts of the science fiction and fantasy
community. You may want to avoid reading
it unless you have a strong stomach. We
mean that. It is not for the
faint-hearted or easily nauseated.
Anyway, in
protest a number of “conservatives” organized the “Sad Puppies” and the “Rabid
Puppies” campaigns, the history of which we will not relate, nor explain, even
if we could. It gets a bit far afield
from the point we’re working our way around to making.
Which is?
Recently, a
fairly new science fiction writer named Jon Del Arroz said
he wanted to wear a “bodycam” to “Worldcon,” a science fiction and fantasy
convention. Instead of simply saying “No,
but you’re welcome to come without it,” the convention organizers forbade him
even to attend. Del Arroz also applied
for membership in the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), a
professional association, and was denied on what seem to the uninitiated to be somewhat
specious grounds.
Del Arroz, by the
way, is the author of For
Steam and Country, a “Young Adult” (YA) novel in the “steampunk”
genre. (And what is “steampunk,” you
ask? Think the old Wild Wild West television show, or Jules Verne after too many nips
at the absinthe bottle.)
Now for the
social justice tie-in. The situation
seems ready-made to apply the techniques of social justice as outlined in CESJ
co-founder Father William Ferree’s Introduction to Social Justice. There is allegedly a systematic injustice
against a group of people, and what appear to be a number of flawed
institutions.
Specifically,
people claim to have been denied access to institutions in which they otherwise
qualify to participate, apparently solely on the basis of their opinions. This would be particularly ironic in the case
of science fiction and fantasy, for these are the literary genres that are
supposed to be open to all ideas, some of which, e.g., traditional religious values, Aristotelian-Thomist
philosophy, and non-socialist political economy, may actually be offensive to
some individuals or groups.
 |
| Msgr. Ronald Knox |
What we may be
seeing is a phenomenon Msgr. Ronald Knox described rather
wittily in his 1950 work, Enthusiasm.
Be careful to note that by “born
again” Knox did not mean what is
usually meant these days in many Christian circles. Rather, he referred to someone who has lifted
him- or herself above the common herd by raising his or her consciousness. As Knox explained in this admittedly lengthy
work,
To be born again [i.e., have your consciousness raised]
makes you a new creature; the seed of grace, ransomed from a drowning world, must
not be confused with the unregenerate; they are (so to say) a different kind of
animal. They alone, and not the ungodly, have legal rights. (Msgr. Ronald Knox, Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion, With Special
Reference to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961, 584.)
Knox concluded with examples of the “godly” or “enlightened”
putting themselves above the law and denying its protection to others. The basic idea is that what is
forbidden to ordinary, unenlightened people (such as “conservatives”) is
perfectly proper, sometimes even mandatory, for those who have ascended to a
higher plane (such as “liberals”).
 |
| Fr. William Ferree, S.M., PH.D. |
Knox alluded to
this apparent inconsistency a number of times in his book, e.g., to understand why pacifist Quakers suffered no qualms of
conscience serving in the army of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) during the various phases of the English
Civil War (1642-1646, 1648-1649, 1649-1651).
As he explained,
But perhaps the inconsistency is not so grave as it appears, if we
study the Anabaptist background of the Quaker movement. We saw in the last chapter that the
Anabaptists did not really hold modern views about non-resistance. Their doctrine was, not that nobody has a
right to take the sword, but that no worldly person has a right to take the
sword. Dominion is founded on grace; if
you are not in a state of grace you have, strictly speaking, no rights, and therefore
no authority either to government or to make war — least of all on the
saints. But what if the saints contrive
to set up the theocratic kingdom which is, always, the subject of their dreams? Is it so clear that they have no right to
enforce their own superior enlightenment on the world? The Peasants’ Revolt and the defence of
Munster give the answer to your question. (Ibid.,
148.)
Translation? If you have become inherently better than
others, i.e., “godly” to others’ “ungodly”
(which doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with religion or even a God or
gods), what is forbidden for the unenlightened is not only permissible but
encouraged, even mandatory for the enlightened.
So, what should
Del Arroz and the others who believe they have been treated unjustly do? So far, just what they have been doing:
educating others regarding the situation.
Is that, however, enough?
 |
| Pope St. John Paul II and Norman Kurland |
By no means. The next step is to organize, focusing
especially on gaining allies within (for example) the SFWA. Why?
Because effective — and just — reform of flawed institutions can only be
achieved by those inside the institution.
Outsiders can (and often must) play a key role, but if those within the
institution do not go along with the program, the reform effort will almost
inevitably end up being a complete waste of time and resources.
This is where
reading the above-noted Fr. Ferree’s Introduction
to Social Justice (available as a free download from the CESJ website)
would be most useful, as would looking over the
CESJ website, and giving Dr.
Norman Kurland, president of CESJ, a call (contact info on the website) if
it looks as if a viable effort to reform science fiction and fantasy fandom
might get off the ground. Norm has been
involved in “revolutionary” reform efforts ranging from the civil rights
movement in the 1960s, to persuading key legislators to champion the initial
enabling legislation for Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). A little thing like reforming science fiction
and fantasy fandom wouldn’t faze him a bit.
#30#
