Michale Chabon joins SFWA
Howard
unexpected-new-neighbor.html)...looks like Michael Chabon has joined
SFWA.
How rare is this? I don't know that much about SFWA, so what I'm
wondering is how often has a "literary" writer decided to become
active in the genre (vs a genre writer that moves out of genre)?
Chabon has certainly been writting stuff that appeals to fans for a
while now, and he's always had good things to say about the genre.
This has to be a good thing, right?
Joseph Nebus
I don't know. I suppose that after the year it's had SFWA is
glad to have anything which might be good news. Whether this does the
organization any good is a splendid and probably unanswerable question
though, and I don't know if his being in it would bring interested
readers to the science fiction shelves.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schilling
>From Andrew Wheeler (http://antickmusings.blogspot.com/2008/01/
>unexpected-new-neighbor.html)...looks like Michael Chabon has joined
>SFWA.
>How rare is this? I don't know that much about SFWA, so what I'm
>wondering is how often has a "literary" writer decided to become
>active in the genre (vs a genre writer that moves out of genre)?
>Chabon has certainly been writting stuff that appeals to fans for a
>while now, and he's always had good things to say about the genre.
>This has to be a good thing, right?
The good news is that Chabon considers himself an SF writer. The bad news
is that, from what I've heard about SFWA, this move might cause him to
regret that.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Is there an article (preferably not a screed) somewhere about what's
wrong with the SFWA? Until some traffic here a few months ago about
bogus takedown orders from an SFWA VP, and LWE mentinoning he had
some problems with the group, I had just assumed it was a fairly
collegial professional association..
Ted
Ted
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I doubt you'll find anything but screeds and rants -- for one thing,
no one agrees on what's wrong with SFWA.
The most common problem cited, though, is the constant internal
squabbling. It's so established that years ago, Brenda Clough drew up
the Grand SFWA Flamewar Calendar -- many of the same arguments crop up
every year at about the same time. E.g., right now we're due for
semiannual the Nebula Award rules flamewar, since the preliminary
ballot has come out. The Nebulas come around twice -- once with the
ballot, and then again after the awards are actually presented.
Summer is the season for the membership-rules flamewar, autumn brings
the election flamewar, etc.
Those are the big ones, but there are also little ones, and the ones
that aren't on an annual cycle -- though there's a space on the
calendar set aside for non-recurring ones, since they generally happen
when none of the regulars are in full blaze.
I wish the calendar were publicly accessible, because it really does
tell you a lot about SFWA, but it doesn't come up easily when googled.
Maybe someone with better google-fu than me can find it.
That said, _my_ major issue with SFWA was the gutlessness of its
officers, who have consistently refused to expell members for actions
that clearly deserve expulsion under the bylaws. Since its founding
in 1965 SFWA has never expelled a member, even when members have been
guilty of plagiarism, libel, assault, copyright infringement, and
other offenses that surely should have gotten them booted.
Credit where it's due, they have cancelled a couple of memberships
obtained in violation of the rules -- for example, Stanislaw Lem's
honorary membership was withdrawn when it was pointed out that he
wasn't eligible for one, that only people not eligible for active
membership could have honorary memberships. He declined to accept an
active membership. And at least two people have been kicked out when
their qualifying credentials turned out to be fraudulent. But they've
never expelled anyone for misbehavior, and they SHOULD have, on at
least three occasions during the twenty-plus years I was a member.
As far as Chabon joining -- hey, Tom Clancy was a member, last I
heard. You don't need to have the SF label on your books to join
SFWA.
Joyce Carol Oates is a member of HWA. Not all literatists look upon
genre writers with disdain.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The seventh issue of Helix is now at http://www.helixsf.com
Howard
> As far as Chabon joining -- hey, Tom Clancy was a member, last I
> heard. You don't need to have the SF label on your books to join
> SFWA.
>
> Joyce Carol Oates is a member of HWA. Not all literatists look upon
> genre writers with disdain.
Wow, I didn't know Clancy had been a member.
I've seen arguements that he should be considered a SF writer, but
didn't really agree.
Brenda Clough
> I wish the calendar were publicly accessible, because it really does
> tell you a lot about SFWA, but it doesn't come up easily when googled.
> Maybe someone with better google-fu than me can find it.
>
Well I've got it, somewhere.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction:
"A Mighty Fortress"
http://www.helixsf.com/archives/Jul07/index.htm
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<rayc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 24, 12:34 pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
>> As far as Chabon joining -- hey, Tom Clancy was a member, last I
>> heard. You don't need to have the SF label on your books to join
>> SFWA.
>
>Wow, I didn't know Clancy had been a member.
Actually, he's a lifetime active member -- at least, he was as of
2006, and I haven't heard of him quitting -- so he still IS a member.
>I've seen arguements that he should be considered a SF writer, but
>didn't really agree.
He apparently thought he should.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
>> I wish the calendar were publicly accessible, because it really does
>> tell you a lot about SFWA, but it doesn't come up easily when googled.
>> Maybe someone with better google-fu than me can find it.
>
>Well I've got it, somewhere.
I'd love to see it again.
BP
wrote:
>That said, _my_ major issue with SFWA was the gutlessness of its
>officers, who have consistently refused to expell members for actions
>that clearly deserve expulsion under the bylaws. Since its founding
>in 1965 SFWA has never expelled a member, even when members have been
>guilty of plagiarism, libel, assault, copyright infringement, and
>other offenses that surely should have gotten them booted.
*snip*
>But they've
>never expelled anyone for misbehavior, and they SHOULD have, on at
>least three occasions during the twenty-plus years I was a member.
Not to disagree wtih you, since I don't know the circumstances of
which you are speaking, but... is there anything in the rules or
bylaws that provides for the "leadership" to expel a member based on
certain standards of conduct? Are the kinds of misconduct that you
listed above specified as grounds for expulsion?
BP
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Yes. Very definitely.
> Are the kinds of misconduct that you
>listed above specified as grounds for expulsion?
The bylaws don't list any specific grounds that I recall, but the
Board of Directors has the authority to kick out anyone they want if
they feel there's a good reason.
Hey, if that hadn't already been in the bylaws, I wouldn't have
resigned; I'd have proposed a bylaws amendment, instead.