It will help to have some context on the origin of this essay—which I never anticipated writing beforehand. Which means that you are now committed to destruction, not discourse. No value judgments implied, but it was a call for courteous self-awareness when in discourse, and, more directly, a kind of diagram of what our discursive behavior tells us about our deepest motivations: are we talking to communicate or do battle?
On the same day, I learned that John Scalzi who has always been friendly and polite to me had mentioned my novel Trial By Fire favorably on his blog. I contacted John to say thanks, but to also offer a differing opinion. In the course of talking about the Hugos, I mentioned the post I referred to above and the wide and multipartisan affinities it had elicited. Our exchanges inspired me to explicate the reasoning behind that post, and before I knew it, an essay had been created.
I let John read it, giving him the yea or nay to post it on his blog. He elected to do so, warning me that he could foresee it not getting a particularly warm reception, and did I really want to go ahead with it? Principle means we do things not in the anticipation of any particular perception, but because they are right. I thought that this essay—which does not engage the rights or wrongs of the current genre divide but merely assesses the long-term costs of how the debate is being conducted—might do some good.
Its reception is a matter of record which you can consult if you wish: just read the comments and my responses that follow the essay itself.
So, since Larry graciously offered to host the essay also, that is precisely what I am doing here. I have included the link to the essay and the reader responses so that everything may be seen in its complete and original context: no alterations of any kind can be asserted, since you are viewing the original itself.
