Emily Gilman

Making Stuff Up and Writing It Down


Leave a comment

Arisia Corporate Meeting(s)

(This is cross-posted from Facebook.)

Okay, here are some thoughts about the Arisia Corporate Meeting(s) that I attended yesterday.

After reading a whole bunch of posts (Crystal’s and Maura’s posts, but also Nchanter’s and some others’) I had two main concerns:

–Are the corporate eboard and those running the con willing to apologize/acknowledge past failure and take meaningful steps to try to fix the problems with con safety and the handling of incident reports?

–Will I have to choose between attending Arisia and supporting union members on strike?

Once I saw that Noel Rosenberg had been banned, the eboard had (almost entirely) stepped down, and the acting president was taking steps to ensure new corporate members would be able to participate in elections, I felt cautiously optimistic. I wanted to wait and see, however, how those corporate meetings played out, both in terms of elections and in terms of the overall tone of the room.

What I experienced was simultaneously long and tedious and really heartening. There were definitely elections in which I was only comfortable voting for one or two out of three or four candidates, but all of those elections went to the people who were my first or (strong) second choices. They all struck me as competent, concerned with improving the IR process, and on board with why so many of us are upset (without rushing all the way to “burn it to the ground”). I was especially impressed by the Member at Large candidate pool, and while I’m very happy with the results, I am a little sad we couldn’t elect like three more of them.

I was also impressed by the tone of the room and the way Gregorian and Andy led the meetings. People introduced themselves with their names and pronouns (and, at one point, were reminded to just say the pronouns rather than “masculine,” “feminine,” or “neutral,” with an offer to explain why the distinction was important after the meeting if needed/desired). People did not always remember in advance, but people were reminded/asked to use trigger warnings so that folks had an opportunity to leave the room for parts of discussions/reports if needed, and care was taken to let folks who did leave know as soon as it was safe to return (so they wouldn’t miss anything else). People asked really smart questions of the candidates, many of which I wouldn’t have thought to ask. And, in general, it felt like a coming-together of people who love the con and want it to be better, safer, and more inclusive. (A common theme among candidates was “I hadn’t gotten involved previously/I’d volunteered in other ways/This was always my vacation, *but in light of the situation I felt the need to step up and contribute.*)

Finally, I was relieved to hear confirmed that there are many of us who will not cross a picket line, and alternative options are being considered, and it sounds like the eboard plans to get feedback from the community on said options before invoking emergency powers to make a decision about which alternative we will pursue if the strike is not resolved by which date.

So at this point, do I think the situation is totally resolved and the con is perfect? Of course not. But I think we have a lot of smart, dedicated people determined to make things better, and an emphasis on sharing knowledge so that we’re not too reliant on any one person for continuity (which would make it hard to hold such a person accountable). And that’s what I needed to feel like, yes, good, this is a con that’s worth investing in improving, not something hopelessly toxic that requires a clean slate.


Leave a comment

Writing and Doing Better

When I was a teenager I attended the Alpha SF/F/H Workshop for Young Writers, and that was where I learned to give–but more importantly, to receive–constructive criticism. I got a lot of great things out of that workshop, but more and more as I get older I appreciate those lessons in particular:

 

  • to appreciate feedback as an opportunity to improve,
  • to view detailed feedback as a compliment (that someone felt I/my work was worth the time and effort that kind of feedback takes),
  • to recognize that the story in my head and the words on the page are two different things,
  • to recognize that the words on the page are ultimately what counts,
  • to balance a desire to do objectively good work with an understanding that I will never and can never please everyone,
  • and to expect that the correct response to a critique is not to argue, or to say “but I did that,” but perhaps to ask a clarifying question and then demonstrate my understanding in the changes I make during revisions.

 

I was discussing this with a friend earlier today, but after our conversation I made a connection that I’m not sure I’d made before: all of those lessons about receiving and using and appreciating constructive criticism? A lot of those correlate to principles of social justice (AKA ethics).

 

I want to get feedback when things I do or say are harmful/problematic, because I do not want to harm people or contribute to systems that harm people, and this feedback (even if painful) is how I learn to do better.

 

I appreciate when people take the time to give me this feedback, both for the above reason but also because they have decided it is worth their time and effort to help me learn. (They don’t have to do that, so the fact that they choose to is a gift.)

 

I understand the difference between intention and impact in the same way that I understand the difference between the story in my head and the words on the page. And just as I have to accept that readers cannot read what I haven’t actually written, and that they may interpret my work in ways I don’t expect or like, I have to accept that sometimes my actions have unintended consequences and those consequences still count.

 

I’m comfortable with the need to distinguish between feedback that is helpful if uncomfortable, feedback that is kindly meant but misses the point or that has a different goal from my own, and feedback that isn’t actually constructive, just critical. I know people I can go to for a second opinion when I need one, or people to whom I can vent in private if I need to get it out of my system so that I can go do the right thing.

 

And I recognize that when I screw up (because we all inevitably screw up) and someone points it out, the correct response is not to argue but to apologize, to ask for clarification if I need it (with the understanding that the other person is not obligated to provide it), and to demonstrate my understanding in the changes I make to my behavior moving forward.

 

It still sucks to be told I did something wrong or hurtful, the way it can still suck to have someone point out flaws in my work. I’m allowed to feel like it sucks. But at the end of the day, what counts is what I do with that feedback, and that’s a lot easier to do when I focus on the end goals: to write better. To do better.