If you’ve got any stake in speculative fiction writing and publishing, you’re most likely aware of the frequent conflicts in that community. What once might have occupied a few heated pages on LiveJournal, or the leisurely back and forth at conventions and via mimeographed zines has changed forever. What we have now are live rolling arguments on venues such as Twitter and Facebook – and that’s just how it is now.
Blogs now seem to serve as some sort of halfway zone between an author/pundit platform, and a repository for lengthier arguments and essays on these topics.
The most recent development in fandom is that our internal conflicts are now external, and in recent times have even hit the pages of USA Today, the Guardian, The Huffington Post and the Washington Post(and probably others). There is a lot of bad blood, entrenched positions, and an almost even division on the old left/right fault lines. Quiet online rumblings are now open hostilities.
This makes me cautiously optimistic. I’m serious. No matter what your differences, conflict is always better than apathy. An old model of group performance goes like this
- Forming
- Storming
- Norming
- Performing
So the Storming (and perhaps the beginning of the Norming) that we are currently seeing is part of an observed trend in group behaviour. (By group, I mean in the broader sense that Fandom=people who have a shared interest)
I’m not sure if step 4 periodically goes back to steps 2 and 3 when Performance isn’t working, but history seems to indicate that it does. So it goes to suit that once this stuff gets sorted, a group Performs.
Whether this means a political fracture is inevitable (as the Norming) and then the Performing means two or more loose socio-political organisations/groupings will emerge is anyone’s guess. But there is change in the wind, thanks largely to the internet and social media. For those with a stake in speculative fiction writing and publishing, we definitely live in interesting times.
Maybe the Norming means that online salvos and attacks will become a normal part of the speculative fiction experience. Which is sad, but if that’s how things are meant to go, maybe some rules of engagement will emerge, unspoken or otherwise.
I’d like to think that maybe things will end up the way the Aussies do things. We’ve got a fairly small and spread out fandom, but we’re as connected as anyone else. Also, as vibrant and talented as anyone else – several Aussies have made it to the 2014 Hugo shortlist, taking up roughly half of the podcast shortlist. So we’ve got some knowledgeable commentators here, and they’re getting some well-deserved global recognition.
And you’d better believe that there are online spats here. All the time, over all the usual things that these communities argue about. But most of the time, folks of differing viewpoints/philosophies get along, and rub elbows at cons etc.
We’re a weird little pond, and it’s quite notable that unlike elsewhere, our award shortlists are more often than not female-friendly in recent years. Basically everyone gets a go, and I’d like to think that we’re a petri-dish of how things could be everywhere.
(note: of course we’re not perfect gender-wise and other-wise, but things are humming along nicely Down Under)
So it was interesting to observe a mini flare-up in Australian SF circles yesterday, between two people disagreeing over a “state of genre fiction” article. It followed the usual pattern of these online conflicts – innocuous article is posted, the little blue birds of Twitter begin to fly, and Facebook posts sprout underfoot with the beginnings of bad feelings.
But then these people took ownership of their disagreement, and a couple of well-stated apologies later and the whole thing was over. It was beautiful to see, and the cause of ire was addressed. Said apologies were both along the lines of “Wow, Twitter really escalated that. Our bad.”
In a diasporic community with all sorts of bad blood and current nastiness, this is the sort of Norming that I can live with. At the risk of sounding like “Can’t We All Just Get Along?” this may only be one example of online fandom etiquette as it could be. But it was great to see. Hopefully the future will bring constructive conflicts, and all of this energy and passion can be harnessed towards positive ends.
Again, we live in interesting times.
EDIT:
Okay, with all respect to those who have participated, I’m (regretfully) going to have to shut down new comments in this thread. I don’t want people to feel unsafe here, and I think things are starting to go circular anyway. Sorry, I’m not usually for censoring people but I have to stop this now. Hope folks understand!
Well said, Jason! And I agree, it was nice to see both parties take ownership of that flare-up.
Well, there are indeed fractures at times and we need controversy over apathy, but I for one was disappointed that an expressed view wasn’t accepted as a view but had to be altered to incorporate a different view that was better for others with a stake.
This is what is wrong with Australian spec-fic politics, it isn’t about the work or the values or the visions of others, it is about how all those things can be toned down in a way that they do not offend.
I think Aussie spec-fic is only marginally better than when I got involved nearly 20 years ago, only there is now a gender divide thrown up every few days. It appears that make writers, editors or publishers are being discouraged from expressing views unless they apply an equality balance in all they do.
I know of what was being bespoke and all was indeed well and good in an honest and candid expression — but alas, the expression was ‘NOT’ allowed, and that is what infuriates me these days.
Australian horror is average and often cliche and hackneyed, always playing of some kind of Australianist view that always seems to be just trying to hard to be something other than good fiction.
Show me you can can write people and then tell me I am wrong, at the moment, over the last two anthologies I have done with horror, I have published perhaps two Australians that made impressions. We don’t even need to go the gender route at all.
So Jason, I am indeed angry, but I am angry at the platitudinal approaches and watered convictions and the overall kisst kissy stuff that hides all the real attitudes.
As I have said every day since I started publishing fiction – I don’t want friendship or agreement, what I want is sparkling fiction that is skill and story and wonder.
Right, onwards into the breach
Yep. Exactly. Well said.
Hmmm interesting. I am writing about this in relation to a broader picture. Looking at the way we construct historical narratives how quickly it can happen. Who says what or who says nothing, who forgets etc. I won’t talk to much to the “conversation”( note the language I am deliberately using) because both Geoff and Alisa are probably tired of being at the centre of everyone’s opinions and thoughts.
It’s very interesting to note how the SFWA changes are still being shaped and reshaped depending on people’s perspectives. Likewise the Ross incident ,called a Twitterstorm, though when I tried to analyse tweets in the following days I have to say that it was more of a quick nasty exchange (which is not to say it doesn’t seriously harm people either).
It was interesting how Tabloid newspapers played into this too, how the Telegraph’s reporting (which was shockingly amateur) help shaped peoples opinions because it was a trusted paper. If I recall correctly the Daily Mail was actually more accurate.
I really don’t like the use of Salvos, Flare-ups, and attacks. I know it makes for more colourful writing but those words bring baggage. We are all guilty of using them, but unless we are actually talking about missiles, fire and warfare we are participating in framing and shaping the narrative in a certain direction.
Same as terms like Social Justice Warriors, and whatever the equivalent caricature of the right is. They all act to frame up the opposition into a nice bundle we can disregard.
I think that Alisa and Geoff were able to sort things out precisely because of their shared humanity.
@Robert
This particular incident isn’t about preventing expression, its about omission. Geoff omitted TPP because he hadn’t read the work. It’s article about the state of the field omitting a large part of it. It’s not about mollifying Alisa, it’s about being historically accurate. Which Geoff was at liberty to not worry about but he did presumably because he values accuracy.
It would be like leaving your contribution to the scene with Altair out of a history of the last (checks copy) 20 odd years.
@Jason
We just need to remember that though we might be humming along nicely, we do need to open the boot to check that all parts are involved in making the engine work. Hmm not sure about that analogy. 🙂
We need to be careful that an absence of noise from Quiltbag/POC/ Minority voices is because they are happy, not because they are constrained or simply not encouraged to be there.
Hey Sean, thanks for your comments and thoughts. One thing worth mentioning is that not everyone is a political activist, or operating above the baseline of “try not to be an arsehole”. Not everyone is on the same page there, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is the open attacks online (and yes, the word is accurate in many instances) between people who don’t see eye to eye on whatever. I’ve got right wing writer friends as well as left wing, and there’s no philosophy in SF that hasn’t engaged in nasty shit at some recent point.
I personally think the world is to PC at the moment. No-one can express themselves without being open to attack from all side ( yes I agree with Jason about the wording) The whole thing could have been handled so much better at the start. I applaud the way Geoff and Alisa kissed and made up but it shouldn’t have gotten to that effect. As I know it was for historical record and Geoff ended up amending his article we should consider the case closed. I think it was horrible that a private disagreement between two people was aired so publicly and both were bombarded with nasty things said against them. That is not okay! We all use social media (myself included) as a medium to get ourselves heard, but we can take that way too far sometimes.
The same goes with that incident with the Hugo’s, the way Jonathan Ross was treated was unspeakable. Sure, he may have not been the right pick for the job in some peoples eyes, but NOTHING makes what happened on Twitter and Facebook after acceptable. You see the poison people write and you feel sick.
As for the gender divide, (this is going to sound sacrilegious, but me being a woman I can say it) women write fantastic fiction, whether it is Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Rural, Horror, or Romance. Just like men do. Yes, men take the centre stage a lot in fiction but women in general aren’t helping themselves by attacking people and portraying the poor me. I know so many female authors and they are brilliant women and wonderful writers. My gender is more than capable of showing what we can do and we should do that by ACTUALLY doing it. Don’t get me wrong, I know that you have to take a stand but I’ve noticed that in the last few years people of both genders are ready to jump down peoples throats for a perceived slight and it is all so public now.
I know I am going to to get jumped for this, but this is just another point of view from a casual observer in the goings on of the publishing world. I do agree Australia is more tolerant of each other and are able to work together to create harmony. People should get off their high horses and get back to the business of writing, publishing and selling of books.
Robert – I can name many women in Australia who write world class Horror – Deborah Biancotti, Kaaron Warren, Margo Lanagan, Kirstyn McDermott, Cat Sparks, Kim Wilkins are the names that immediately spring to mind. It’s not hard to think of them – they seem to be winning lots of accolades and praise of their work.. If you can’t find Australian women who write strong horror then you might need to open your eyes.
For what its worth, I don’t think that Twitter escalated the discussion at all. I remember a lot of ling livejournal entries that did a lot more damage than 5 tweets. And I actually believe, based on previous experience, any issues I have raised privately would have been dismissed.
I had no problem with the article being retitled and left unchanged.
Tarran, I think your use of the word “attack” is interesting. If “attack” means to ask why the most successful horror in this country was left out of a piece on the state of the genre then I guess I need to review my entire educational system and experience.
Alisa, I do not believe that I said that you were attacking anybody. In fact, I applauded the fact that you and Geoff had settled your differences AND thought that ANY negative response towards you was not on.
I made a reference in my previous comment , a general statement about the gender bias and feminism in general which had nothing to do with you whatsoever. “Yes, men take the centre stage a lot in fiction but women in general aren’t helping themselves by attacking people and portraying the poor me.”
I am sorry you took that to mean I thought you were ‘attacking’ but it had nothing to do with you at all. As far as I was concerned I had finished talking about you and Geoff in the previous paragraph.
As Geoff said, his article is much better now that the omission has been fixed and we all know the fantastic female horror writers you publish. I am sorry you took offense but I wasn’t attacking you.
Jason, does this “One thing worth mentioning is that not everyone is a political activist, or operating above the baseline of “try not to be an arsehole”. Not everyone is on the same page there, and that’s okay. ”
mean you think it’s ok to act like an arsehole and go unchecked? Because personally, I’d like to be in a community where we think that’s actually not ok. I didn’t think Geoff was being an arsehole by unintentionally mentioning TPP so is it me you think was the arsehole here? I’d like you to please tell me where my attacked occurred. My apology was not about raising the issue, my apology was that I knew that Geoff received several tweets in a go and that his response was in reaction to that.
Twitter certainly made the thing more in-your-face, and I know that any issues raised privately, in this instance, would have ended up with the same results: the article changed to reflect the true state of horror in Australia, both in regard to noteworthy publishers and correctly applying the adjective ‘horror’ to ‘writers.’
Alisa and myself have worked things out to everyone’s satisfaction, and know the article is stronger and more relevant for the changes made.
That said, I am glad the missing components were brought to my attention, whichever the means of delivery of the message.
Sorry Alisa, push your b arrow away from me please. I was not specifically speaking of women horror writers, of which there are plenty and as you say they are in good stead, but when added to the plethora of writing coming out across the board, we do so lag… If you want to make my comments a gender issue, so be it, but I don’t particularly care for such rubbish.
Yes, I know Kim Wilkins work, so too Margos and remember I did publish the first ever work of Deb’s, so I did see talent way back and have not been disappointed with the progression.
But if you draw up 100 published fictions across the board in Horror, the quality is limited and all the authors you have mentioned do not write in the genre all of the time, their talents are spread across a wider field.
If you are so hell bent on gender divides, create a logical and coherent position on why the governing principles of most of the major gender publishers are women and being in this position why they still shy away from a greater body of women writers. I have never believed in quota and anyone who starts arguments using this language you have just said, quality writing, and quality story telling and meaningless.
I support what Geoff Brown does because what he does is a bloody tough job and any one in this business in Australia has to be rather thick skinned and almost bloody minded in order to meet deadlines and deliver quality work. If Geoff had said he believed in unicorns and practiced his editing skills in the bath, I would still say well done and thank you for the work.
I will stand by my comments Alisa, Australian horror fictions does lag behind the UK and USA and it might even be nice if it could be creative like the French, but then they are a bit weird at the best of times. I reject you gender bias complaint and I reject you reference to me suggesting any. Open your eyes perhaps, as I don’t see men or women writers when I review and assess fiction, I see fiction and that is the job I have.
Your issues with me are noted, but if you want to use them in some way then fine — claiming violence is poor form… we met once, I never spoke to you. You have been caught in some flame wars many, many years ago — so I reject your use of violence as an over reactions and hypersensitivity.
Alas, it is you fueling things, not me
Okay, I’m going to wade in with my Non-Fire Extinguisher now 🙂 again, I simply ask that people keep on topic and not start personal comments on my blog. For a post that started off couched in generalities, things have certainly derailed!
Again, very glad that people hold such passion for a thing they enjoy, but it disturbs me when people go to battle (which is somewhat ironic as that was the point of the original article).
well you missed the claim that i was violent, and i did take offense… i see alisa has now removed it… you work in fiction jason and being generalistic is more than a difficult banner to fly.
I might politely remind you Robert that we judged the Aurealis Awards in 2006 together. Your behaviour in that experience is why we have since never met in person (due to that threat of physical violence) and this is the last comment you will see from me to you. I still have all those emails, perhaps you might have yours and you can review your threats which came in writing and which a third person witnessed.
@Jason,
I am more particularly concerned with the specific event that occurred the other day. And agree that at times it will be fair to label certain actions as attacks, though I am less inclined to use barrages and salvos because of their baggage, I’d rather be more exact and straightforward in my language.
I am being particular(pedantic?) here because I have observed the “event” from the point it happened and for the past two days and I have watched commentators talk and shape the narrative around the “event” so that it has gone from a discussion where someone asked some pointed questions about an omission and someone reacted angrily (and understandably for reasons discussed) to being, most generously put here, as a flare-up.
Is it right to categorise it us a flare-up? Is that emotive language, does that make those who weren’t there, who did not read the tweets react in a certain way, does it make people who might have a history with either of the participants react in a certain way? Just some thoughts.
That’s my concern with language, how it can frame and alter the narrative, after the event. I wonder, had we not had the storify, would this event have been resolved as quickly as it apparently has been? Or would people have dragged out old arguments from other battles, axes to grind and so forth?
If you are not convinced, that this reframing is ocurring, there’s an example of reframing, of altering the narrative in this very thread ie in Tarran’s comment.
Apologies to Tarran for the criticism but I think it’s illustrative of what we have to be careful of. There’s no malice on Tarran’s part, she’s not being vindictive or pushing an agenda but she’s participated in shaping the narrative of the event in a certain way, post the event being resolved:
“The whole thing could have been handled so much better at the start. I applaud the way Geoff and Alisa kissed and made up but it shouldn’t have gotten to that effect. As I know it was for historical record and Geoff ended up amending his article we should consider the case closed. I think it was horrible that a private disagreement between two people was aired so publicly and both were bombarded with nasty things said against them. That is not okay! We all use social media (myself included) as a medium to get ourselves heard, but we can take that way too far sometimes.”
1. Yep twitter not the best place to bring the issue to someones attention, that being said there’s little in the discussion that when read calmly and at a distance that one would read as inflammatory. I understand that’s not how twitter can be experienced but that experience is not anything but partially determined by the sender of the tweets. It’s curious that there’s an expectation on behalf of the tweeter to try and understand how the recipient might experience their tweets but little expectation on the recipient to expect that the sender is acting in anything but good faith.
2. The participants have kissed and made up – this phrasing concerns me (it has sexist overtones, note, not saying that Tarran’s sexist) but more importantly It reduces the event to something almost infantile ie the two kiddies have got over their troubles and made up. When what actually happened was two adults had chat about something that’s quite important and resolved their differences. With this comment we trivialise what is actually what we’d like to see when people are criticised or asked pointed questions, they resolve the issue
3. “I think it was horrible that a private disagreement between two people was aired so publicly and both were bombarded with nasty things said against them.”
Here the facts have been altered entirely. It’s not a private disagreement, Alisa asked some questions and Geoff tried to answer them(after being hit with them in one go, not a salvo launched by Alisa but an effect of turning on twitter when you get home from work). They weren’t on the evidence I have seen, bombarded with tweets, nor did they have nasty things said against them at that point. The conversation was on twitter and facebook and was remarkably civilised.
4.“That is not okay! We all use social media (myself included) as a medium to get ourselves heard, but we can take that way too far sometimes.”
Aside from the choice to raise her queries in a format that could fall prey to technical and software limitations of twitter, Alisa has acted as any professional would have. If she had been emotive, called Geoff names, raised an army of tweeters against him, then we might be able to say she went too far.
—
The event is finished but as this thread demonstrates the narrative continues, and changes and requires people to step back in, to state the facts.
This is a fairly small example. The Jonathan Ross event, was slightly larger, certainly nastier but when I went looking for the “Twitter storm” the following week, evidence was light on the ground for the claims made by the Tabloids and certain members of the community. Sure I’d say their were attacks but not all that much different in scale to other events that community members deal with on a weekly basis. Certainly nothing approaching what Seanan McGuire had to put up with when she was only tangentially involved.
Indeed there was no malice on part whatsoever. I could have used different language yes, but that is where this country and the world is being way too PC.
The phrase kissed and made up is a turn of phrase which was not meant to be taken as sexist. I didn’t even think about that when I wrote it.
I understand all your points Sean and I agree with most of them. This statement
4.“That is not okay! We all use social media (myself included) as a medium to get ourselves heard, but we can take that way too far sometimes.”
Really was a generalisation which I should have clarified more as I wasn’t really thinking of Geoff and Alisa when I was writing it more the fact so many people misuse social media platforms for arguing as such. My bad for not being more clear.
I enjoy being in a discussion like this with adults and if we all had the same opinions the world would be a boring place.
I didn’t even think about that when I wrote it. <— This is sort of what I was getting at. We all use phrases, cliche's, words without really thinking about it (see my mea culpa below). Now I am sure that when Jason called this a flare-up he was using it as short hand and he wasn't trying to inflame anything.
Yeah, aah, I also used flare up; not in an inflammatory way, but that was the word that flowed from my fingertips. Did I think about it? Not at all. Did I use it in its correct context? Yes. A ‘flare up’ is a sudden increase in intensity. Would I change it considering the debate that’s followed? No. It was what it was.
A lot of emphasis has been placed on the words we use and the power they hold, and I’m the first to agree that words should be chosen wisely. What I sometimes find… worrisome is the increasing need for what appears to be a form of self-censorship (yeah, that’s probably going to come back and bite me on the arse).
We’re emotive beings, so the words we use are, more often than not, going to be emotive — it’s the nature of the beast. Are we getting to the stage that every blog or FB post, tweet, comment needs to be analyzed from every angle to ensure inclusivity for all before hitting the enter button? Certainly, there are words that are designed to be inflammatory (you can usually spot those pretty quickly), but the tone of an article/post in its entirety is also pretty easy to spot. I can tell when someone uses language to poke the bear, and I won’t waste my time or my energy on someone looking for page-hits or notoriety for the sake of notoriety. I’ve better things to do.
As a society, inclusivity is a right not a privilege. As authors, editors and publishers, we make our living with words. Does this mean we’re held to a higher standard? I’d hope we’re held to the same standard. Equality goes across the board, no matter your race, gender, beliefs or sexual-preference.
I’m now sitting here wondering whether I should hit the ‘post comment’ button, but as Robert said: once more into the breach…
Yeah you did Firestarter 😛
We could play a game of dictionary definitions if you like 🙂
Flare-up
1. a sudden occurrence of flame
2. a sudden occurrence or expression of anger
3. an occurrence in which something (such as violence or a disease) suddenly begins or becomes worse
Yes being ever so slightly facetious. 🙂
But as we are all mostly well disposed to each other, I didn’t think there was anything in either of the uses of it, between us here. So that’s okay if we are all friends and we all sort of know each other and generally get along. But this is all in public, in print, so…
As to self censorship, that’s interesting. Is it self censorship to modify your words so as to be as clear as possibly as to your meaning, to cause as little offense as possible? Do you really feel there is an increase in the self – suppression of views?
What first got me interested in all of this was tracking the changes to the reporting (reporting is generous, let’s say the retelling) of the events surrounding the SFWA changes last year, how that story changed not only when those diametrically opposed to the changes retold the story but even when it was retold by neutral commentators. If you never went back to the source material you were left with the impression it was all just a bit of a kerfuffle, over there, in America. The retelling of that story continues to the point now where SFWA is credited with Jonathan Ross withdrawing (an extreme example).
We don’t as a community report or record or criticize ourselves very well(professionally), probably because we are too small and its too hard to maintain journalistic detachment, when everyone knows each other.
Tarran, my bad, I read your first sentence, “I personally think the world is to PC at the moment. No-one can express themselves without being open to attack from all side”
as meaning my comments on the original article. Thanks for clearing that up!
No problems, as I said in a comment to Sean, my wording could have been phrased better 😀
Sean, as you say, language can reframe a narrative.
I do query which of my tweets could be considered as ‘reacting angrily’, as I have just looked once more at your Storify, and am sure I managed to keep calm and fairly collected throughout the exchange?
Mea Culpa. Referring to your FB post, you tweets in response are calm. But see how easily perceptions can change on careless wording.
To be quite fair, you never acted with anger towards Alisa. I read you facebook post as being formulated out of a sense of frustration/anger because of the way you received those tweets. You’d acted in good faith and probably felt you were being criticized. I rescind my use of anger in describing that event, for doing exactly what I have pulled up others in the thread for. And I apologize for my reframing.
Oh boy. I go away for a bit and come to a blog explosion!!!
Firstly, thanks everyone for commenting, but am a little sad that things seem to be getting out of hand. I’ve not meant to upset anyone, cause arguments or talk in anything but generalities about these issues. Again, these are my viewpoints, right or wrong, and they won’t be for everyone. I was truly inspired by the resolution of the disagreement between Alisa and Geoff, and it upsets me a little that, rather than giving out kudos for the way things were handled, I’ve possibly ripped off the bandaid and rubbed salt in the wound. BLOG FAIL.
I probably need to clarify for Alisa that my bit “One thing worth mentioning is that not everyone is a political activist, or operating above the baseline of “try not to be an arsehole”” was more in reply to Sean than anything, in reply to his comment of “We need to be careful that an absence of noise from Quiltbag/POC/ Minority voices is because they are happy, not because they are constrained or simply not encouraged to be there.”
I guess my point is that we’re not all driven to resolve Social Justice Issues. I’d love for everyone to get all the nice things, but I just don’t have the energy or the wherewithal to make it happen. I want to be a writer first, a decent human second, and I just don’t think there’s any room left in my life to be an activist. I’d like to think that’s okay, and feel that it’s erroneous to assume that everyone is working towards the same political ends.
I don’t believe you ripped a band off Jason, but you raised some points that I thought were sound. I am an activist in many spheres of society and I know how emotional some things can get, and when emotions run high bad things get said.
I was only creating a point and I found the response as I expected and it came from the source I expected. While an academic point for me it did show something of what Geoff maybe experienced; only just though.
I deliberately opened myself up for rebuke, and I got it along with the off the cuff parting comment of me being violent. I am not sure how I am meant to take that, I know it is untrue but there you have it, it does appear that all this is really about placating a singular person. Yes there is salt in the wound and rightly so, as I feel somethings do need to be exposed and not slipped back under the carpet.
These days I am a writer and publisher of some collections and anthologies, and a number of Horror collections. Did Geoff mention me? Well no, but that didn’t bother me, I am very small after all and my impact of the scene is very minor, it just if you are looking for rarer works, I just might have it. I have avoided getting involved in this type of commentary for the last 10 years mainly because I disagree with the status quo and have always believed the progression of Australian genre fiction needs to be an ever growing beast or animal. I seriously dislike the ‘Look how great we are’ attitide that does sweep into the publishing and writing industry from time to time.
So, I disagreed with something, I made honest commentary, that could be right or wrong, I am not the best judge, and I get abused twice… interesting that…
I thought we were all having a really grown up chat. But as you point out this event is sorted, done and dusted. Indeed the commentary has gone on longer than the event ever did.
PS for what it’s worth, I think flare-up is a perfectly fine word to use in this instance- in fact it fits Sean’s #3 definition perfectly “when something begins or gets worse”. There, done, language is mutable and beautiful and we can all get on with our day 🙂
Okay, with all respect to those who have participated, I’m (regretfully) going to have to shut down new comments in this thread. I don’t want people to feel unsafe here, and I think things are starting to go circular anyway. Sorry, I’m not usually for censoring people but I have to stop this now. Hope folks understand!