International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day

On one hand, I'm really happy that Dr. Hendrix's screed seems to have boomeranged. i.e., It's encouraging authors to put up freely redistributable stories on the net. I think this can only be good for the authors who do this. (I realize that the United Network of Newton Archives is not exactly touching the pulse of the electronic community. But Cory Doctorow has his own section of its e-book archive.)

On the other hand, I don't hear that many people pointing out how sad it is that a science fiction writer posits such a negative stance on technology. His final point was how unrelenting evil, evil, evil the internet is. I think he is saying that using it is to walk down the road of inevitable sin and corruption. Given that this is the point which unifies his others, I accuse him of, at least, burying the lede. e.g., simply blogging, not necessarily about your work, is enough to condemn you. Of course, he ends by asserting the supremacy of Good, True, Honest Manual Labor over "futzing with these electrons." (Ok, he does not literally put it this way, but I think the implication is clear. He makes it sound like he's retreating into the woods, never to come back out again. Noble Cincinnatus returning to the farm, as it were. Maybe he'll emerge from the woods to put down a plebeian revolt some day.)

I'm not saying that we must all be optimistic Analog readers (or writers), but I think one of the givens of SF is that science and technology are not inherently evil. They may not work out exactly the way that we want, but they are not inevitable paths to our certain destruction (moral or otherwise). This is why Michael Crichton is not a science fiction author. (Of course, if he were, he'd probably be more marginalized. :-) )

I'm also not saying that Dr. Hendrix shouldn't think the way he does. I wouldn't presume. I'm just saying that, coming from a science fiction writer, it's kind of like a seagull deciding never to soar, preferring the hard, honest work of constantly flapping his wings, so he never forgets how. He's the seagull who wants never to soar because he may not always be able to.

Anyways, April 23rd is International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day. I think it's a really cool thing to do. I look forward participating one day soon.
(I mean, the closest I've come is a rejection from Strange Horizons so good that I've been walking on air for days now. Professional quality is still a bit of a presumption.)

He agrees with his critics?

I saw Hendrix Clarifies "Scab"-rous Remarks on Web Publishing via matociquala who saw it via james_nicoll.

If I read it correctly, he essentially agrees what people have been saying about him. e.g., he calls himself a Luddite and he actually uses the expression "why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?" It's unfortunate that he doesn't offer any rational for why he thinks his warnings are valid. It would have been better if he told us why he thinks distributing fiction on the net will disenfranchise authors. I suspect it involves some specious argument which assumes all creative works are fungible. Or to use his analogy, the only possible use for a cow is the milk. All milks are interchangeable as are all cows. I honestly don't think this is the case for creative works. Creative works are not interchangeable and they have multiple uses. However, all he says here is that it's bad because he feels it's bad.

He also says that buried the lede. i.e., he actually meant his post to be about the evils of the net. If running SFWA is as tedious as he says it is, I don't really think you can blame the net for that any more than you can blame a telephone or the post office. However, I've never run SFWA or any comparable organization, so what do I know?

At least this time he compared himself to Eisenhower rather than Ted Kaczynski. The difference is that Eisenhower, in his farewell address, did not resort to name calling but he did explain the rationale behind his warnings. So he may have aspired to Eisenhower. I'm not sure he reached Eisenhower.

BTW, I have to say that Dr. Hendrix's post is an exceptionally savvy bit of self-promotion via the internet. I hadn't heard of him before this. So I certainly wouldn't have looked him up otherwise. But now, his name and the name of his books are all over the internet. Unfortunately, none of his book blurbs grabbed me. (I'm not saying they're bad, just that they're not my cup of tea.) Obviously, I wouldn't expect him to have his novels up on the net. His publisher might have put something up. I'm not motivated enough to check.