Ten-Year Race Memory in the Science Fiction Community.
Neil Belsky
While the subject of this post was catalyzed by the meeting laying the ground-work for Minicon 37 it does have deeper roots in the majority of science fiction fandom (in other words, "Minicon, don't feel persecuted.").
There was a recent meeting to choose a chair-thing and guests of honor for Minicon 37 (I will ignore the first task, as, to paraphrase Alan King: Anyone who runs his own con deserves it!).
There were the usual suggestions made for the usual popular guests (choice deleted to protect the innocent seconds or thirds , just in case the individual chooses not to accept, no one likes to know they are an after thought).
There were also a number of non-standard or "Golden Oldies" made as suggestions (note, another disclaimer: yes, I made some of them but this is not a sour grapes posting) Among the ones I suggested was Katherine MacLean
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/authorsM.html#MA
The number of people who stood there with dropped jaws and "Huh?"s written over their faces was staggering. These included a number of self-proclaimed feminists who did not remember that between Katy, Phyllis Gotlieb and Judith Merril was formed a triumvirate of female writers in the latter part of this past century, who kicked down so many closed doors that were (at that time) still locked to women.
Another note: this IS NOT a post calling into question the issue of female writers, as there were many women on the list of nominees. It does, however ask:
If the purpose of the position of "Guest of Honor" is what it is named, then perhaps it would be a good idea for convention runners AND readers to consider the big picture of the history of the science fiction, fantasy and horror genres.
End of part one of obnoxious (but hopefully well-crafted) rant.
Part Two:
Science Fiction: Slan Shack or Ghetto or (as Fred Phillips has said MANY times)
"And Further more!"
What is the mainstream (besides a fanzine) and why do so many fen run screaming from it.
Some names:
Jerome Charyn,
http://www.centerforbookculture.org/interviews/interview_charyn.html
James Branch Cabel,
Thorne Smith,
http://members.tripod.com/~JCHOMA/THORNE.html
George C. Chesbro
http://www.dangerousdwarf.com/main.html
This is a very short segment (with some links) of a very long list.
My point being, 95% of fans (readers, convention goers or otherwise have probably never heard of these people (even though Cabel and Smith both enjoyed reprints under the Ballantine Adult Fantasy banner and it's successor (thanks to the memory and fine taste of the late Lin Carter and Ian Ballantine).
There are tons of other titles and authors. Among them
Thomas King (Had to cram it down Arthur Hlavaty's throat but hey, ask him what he thought of it) John Barth, Carol Hill and many of the works of Jack Finney (not always marketed in the science fiction section, "The Woodrow Wilson Dime" and "Marion's Wall" are two of many titles that come to mind)
Anywho, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
But remember, if you think I'm wrong, mention some of these names at a convention and see the responses you get.
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Neil Belsky <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
[content snipped 'cause it isn't my pidgin]
Neil, could you consult with your local computer gurus to find a
way to make your lines break and wrap at some convenient point
(60 or 70 characters maybe), rather than arbitrarily wrapping
between the 80th and 81st character?
Thankx.....
David Dyer-Bennet
> There were also a number of non-standard or "Golden Oldies" made as
> suggestions (note, another disclaimer: yes, I made some of them but
> this is not a sour grapes posting) Among the ones I suggested was
> Katherine MacLean
>
> http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/authorsM.html#MA
>
> The number of people who stood there with dropped jaws and "Huh?"s
> written over their faces was staggering. These included a number of
> self-proclaimed feminists who did not remember that between Katy,
> Phyllis Gotlieb and Judith Merril was formed a triumvirate of female
> writers in the latter part of this past century, who kicked down so
> many closed doors that were (at that time) still locked to women.
I did't recognize MacLean. I certainly recognize Judith Merril. And
I wonder why C.L. Moore isn't getting mentioned.
> Another note: this IS NOT a post calling into question the issue of
> female writers, as there were many women on the list of nominees. It
> does, however ask:
>
> If the purpose of the position of "Guest of Honor" is what it is
> named, then perhaps it would be a good idea for convention runners
> AND readers to consider the big picture of the history of the
> science fiction, fantasy and horror genres.
Which we in fact were trying to do, I will point out. And the
collective consciousness did in fact bring her name out.
Honoring people who have done very important work a long time in the
past is a valid way to pick guests of honor. It has the advantage
that you've had time for more different appraisals of their work, so
you're more likely to be right about its importance. It also can't be
put off too long; these people will eventually die, and then it'll be
too late to have them as guests.
It's not IMHO the only valid approach. Inviting the people doing the
fresh new exciting work is also a good approach, with its own
advantages and disadvantages. Minicon chose guests mostly on what we
called the "old farts platform" for years. Recently for various
reasons we've been feeling more free to experiment, to NOT invite the
oldest best-established authors.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd...@dd-b.net
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Del Cotter
choosing a GoH for Minicon):
>There were the usual suggestions made for the usual popular guests
>(choice deleted to protect the innocent seconds or thirds , just in
>case the individual chooses not to accept, no one likes to know they
>are an after thought).
>There were also a number of non-standard or "Golden Oldies" made as
>suggestions (note, another disclaimer: yes, I made some of them but
>this is not a sour grapes posting) Among the ones I suggested was
>Katherine MacLean
>
>http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/authorsM.html#MA
>
>The number of people who stood there with dropped jaws and "Huh?"s
>written over their faces was staggering. These included a number of
>self-proclaimed feminists who did not remember that between Katy,
>Phyllis Gotlieb and Judith Merril was formed a triumvirate of female
>writers in the latter part of this past century, who kicked down so
>many closed doors that were (at that time) still locked to women.
I know some committees try to choose a GoH who will be a "draw" for
their con.
Speaking for myself only, I have never been drawn to a con by the GoH,
but I have often been introduced to the work of a writer as a result of
their being Honoured by the con committee. I think that's the way it
should be.
Case in point: I got the SECCOND PR2 yesterday, and, no disrespect to
Paul McAuley, but what really made me <*bounce*> was the membership list
at the back. It's going to be a good one!
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
Joel Rosenberg
Yup. I think it's unfortunate that Minicon never got Sprague and
Catherine. Not shameful, but unfortunate; they were neat folks, and
people would have enjoyed meeting them/ seeing them again.
>
> It's not IMHO the only valid approach. Inviting the people doing the
> fresh new exciting work is also a good approach, with its own
> advantages and disadvantages. Minicon chose guests mostly on what we
> called the "old farts platform" for years. Recently for various
> reasons we've been feeling more free to experiment, to NOT invite the
> oldest best-established authors.
> --
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Vicki Rosenzweig
15:29:25 +0000:
>To Explain:
>While the subject of this post was catalyzed by
>the meeting laying the ground-work for Minicon 37 it does
>have deeper roots in the majority of science fiction fandom (in other
>words, "Minicon, don't feel persecuted.").
>There was a recent meeting to choose a chair-thing and guests
>of honor for Minicon 37 (I will ignore the first task, as, to
>paraphrase Alan King: Anyone who runs his own con deserves it!).
>There were the usual suggestions made for the usual popular guests
>(choice deleted to protect the innocent seconds or thirds , just in
>case the individual chooses not to accept, no one likes to know
>they are an after thought).
>There were also a number of non-standard or "Golden Oldies" made as
>suggestions (note, another disclaimer: yes, I made some of them but
>this is not a sour grapes posting) Among the ones I suggested was
>Katherine MacLean
>
>http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/authorsM.html#MA
>
>The number of people who stood there with dropped jaws and "Huh?"s
>written over their faces was staggering. These included a number of
>self-proclaimed feminists who did not remember that between Katy,
>Phyllis Gotlieb and Judith Merril was formed a triumvirate
(Interesting choice of words, that. Were the three of them ever in
charge of things?)
>of female writers in the latter part of this past century, who
kicked down so many closed doors that were (at that time) still
locked to women.
I'm more than a little startled to see such a statement that doesn't
mention Joanna Russ or Ursula Le Guin.
>
>Another note: this IS NOT a post calling into question the issue of
female writers, as there were many women on the list of nominees.
Then what on earth, or off it, is the purpose of that intro?
>It does, however ask:
>
>If the purpose of the position of "Guest of Honor" is what it is named,
then perhaps it would be a good idea for convention runners AND readers
>to consider the big picture of the history of the science fiction, fantasy
>and horror genres.
Perhaps they are. People can consider only what they've had the chance
to learn.
>
>End of part one of obnoxious (but hopefully well-crafted) rant.
>
>Part Two:
>
>Science Fiction: Slan Shack or Ghetto or (as Fred Phillips has said MANY times)
>
>"And Further more!"
>
>What is the mainstream (besides a fanzine) and why do so many fen run screaming
from it.
And what is a question mark, and who have you seen run screaming?
>
>Some names:
>
>Jerome Charyn,
>
>http://www.centerforbookculture.org/interviews/interview_charyn.html
>James Branch Cabel,
Two l's, please.
>
>Thorne Smith,
>
>http://members.tripod.com/~JCHOMA/THORNE.html
>
>George C. Chesbro
>
>http://www.dangerousdwarf.com/main.html
>
>This is a very short segment (with some links) of a very long list.
What do these four writers have in common, other than being dead?
I've read some Smith and a lot of Chesbro (basically, everything he'd
published as of whatever point in the early 1990s when someone said
"here, read this.") They're very different in style and subjects.
>My point being, 95% of fans (readers, convention goers or otherwise have
>probably never heard of these people (even though Cabel and Smith both
>enjoyed reprints under the Ballantine Adult Fantasy banner and it's
>successor (thanks to the memory and fine taste of the late Lin Carter and
>Ian Ballantine).
Now, explain why this is relevant. What percentage of the English-reading
population as a whole has heard of these people? Why is a fan of
Le Guin, Bujold, or Wolfe more likely to enjoy their work than someone
who prefers non-sf? And how does genre mystery land in the mainstream?
>There are tons of other titles and authors. Among them
>
>Thomas King (Had to cram it down Arthur Hlavaty's throat but hey, ask
>him what he thought of it) John Barth, Carol Hill and many of the works
>of Jack Finney (not always marketed in the science fiction section,
>"The Woodrow Wilson Dime" and "Marion's Wall" are two of many titles that
>come to mind)
Why don't you tell us what *you* think of Thomas King? Arthur rarely
posts here, you know.
>
>Anywho, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
Your opinion being that other sf fans read different books than you do,
I take it?
>But remember, if you think I'm wrong, mention some of these names
>at a convention and see the responses you get.
Is your suggestion that I should ask someone next weekend
"this guy in Minneapolis thinks Thomas King is cool. Have you
heard of him? Me neither"?
>
(And why am I typing a long reply to a post that has "donotreply"
in the headers?)
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Doug Wickstrom
<tdssbtge8tdrkjo9l...@4ax.com>
Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> excited the ether to say:
It's the "vir" in "triumvirate" that makes me chuckle.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"I think it [Western civilization] would be a good idea." --Mohandas K. Gandhi
James Nicoll
Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>>
>>George C. Chesbro
>>
>>http://www.dangerousdwarf.com/main.html
>>
>>This is a very short segment (with some links) of a very long list.
>
>What do these four writers have in common, other than being dead?
>I've read some Smith and a lot of Chesbro (basically, everything he'd
>published as of whatever point in the early 1990s when someone said
>"here, read this.") They're very different in style and subjects.
Chesbro's dead?
--
"Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering
draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would
sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility
for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw
David Langford
<donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
>James Branch Cabel
[...]
>95% of fans (readers, convention goers or otherwise have probably never
>heard of these people (even though Cabel and Smith both enjoyed reprints
>under the Ballantine Adult Fantasy banner
The other side of the coin is that a good many fans remember James Branch
Cabell well enough to be able to spell his surname.
Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.co.uk/
Kate Schaefer
news:3ltsbtc507jf167u3...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:29:25 +0000, Neil Belsky
> <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
>
> >James Branch Cabel
> [...]
> >95% of fans (readers, convention goers or otherwise have probably never
> >heard of these people (even though Cabel and Smith both enjoyed reprints
> >under the Ballantine Adult Fantasy banner
>
> The other side of the coin is that a good many fans remember James Branch
> Cabell well enough to be able to spell his surname.
Indeed, a good many fans are able intelligently to discuss a great deal of
literature. David Bratman has frequently anchored panels on books science
fiction fans would probably enjoy which are not, strictly speaking, science
fiction; the audience always includes many, many people who have read most
of the books he mentions, and who are pleased to learn about the others.
Panels such as the one Neil Belsky suggests are generally popular everywhere
I've seen them done. People who like to read like to hear each other's
lists of books and to give their own lists. They like to hear about obscure
books they might enjoy (Curiosities, the last page of Fantasy and Science
Fiction, is my current favorite source for recommendations of obscure books
I might enjoy). What people don't like to hear is a suggestion that they
are somehow unworthy because they have not yet read everything Mr.
Interlocutor has read.
Michael J. Lowrey
> Panels such as the one Neil Belsky suggests are generally popular everywhere
> I've seen them done. People who like to read like to hear each other's
> lists of books and to give their own lists. They like to hear about obscure
> books they might enjoy (Curiosities, the last page of Fantasy and Science
> Fiction, is my current favorite source for recommendations of obscure books
> I might enjoy). What people don't like to hear is a suggestion that they
> are somehow unworthy because they have not yet read everything Mr.
> Interlocutor has read.
Cf. perhaps my favorite WisCon tradition, the annual "More Women SF
Writers You Never Heard Of." What's amazing is, there's always more of
them for every year's panel.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Del Cotter
David Langford <ans...@cix.co.uk> said:
>Neil Belsky wrote:
>
>>James Branch Cabel
>[...]
>>95% of fans (readers, convention goers or otherwise have probably never
>>heard of these people (even though Cabel and Smith both enjoyed reprints
>>under the Ballantine Adult Fantasy banner
>
>The other side of the coin is that a good many fans remember James Branch
>Cabell well enough to be able to spell his surname.
But not often well enough to able to pronounce it, eh?
<cue clerihew>
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
doc-bark
"Del Cotter" <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wa279CGC...@branta.demon.co.uk...
doc-bark
Let's try this again.
Not dumping on people because they haven't read what I have. Complaining
because they don't seem to want to go out of the ghetto.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used examples
Neil
"Kate Schaefer" <ka...@oz.net> wrote in message
news:99nuq6$2d6$0...@216.39.145.104...
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
I don't know the clerihew, but I think I learned from one of the Lin Carter
intros that it rhymes with "rabble".
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
Loren MacGregor
>
> Did I suggest a panel?
> Let's try this again.
> Not dumping on people because they haven't read what I have. Complaining
> because they don't seem to want to go out of the ghetto.
> Perhaps I shouldn't have used examples
Maybe you should have used examples of people who don't want to get
out of the ghetto instead?
There are very few people that I know, and who are loosely or
tightly associated with fandom, who do -not- read outside the
genre. I think, for example, that you might do well to browse
through the last year's worth of posting here -- and probably on
.written and .comp as well, though I don't read those newsgroups --
where you will find a wide variety of reading in and out of science
fiction, and, indeed, in and out of -fiction-.
I obviously wasn't at the discussion you referenced in your first
post, but I am constantly astonished by the breadth of reading shown
by my friends.
-- LJM
Kip Williams
>
> In article <wa279CGC...@branta.demon.co.uk>, Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
> >David Langford <ans...@cix.co.uk> said:
> >
> >>Neil Belsky wrote:
> >>
> >>>James Branch Cabel
> >>[...]
> >>>95% of fans (readers, convention goers or otherwise have probably never
> >>>heard of these people (even though Cabel and Smith both enjoyed reprints
> >>>under the Ballantine Adult Fantasy banner
> >>
> >>The other side of the coin is that a good many fans remember James Branch
> >>Cabell well enough to be able to spell his surname.
> >
> >But not often well enough to able to pronounce it, eh?
> >
> ><cue clerihew>
>
> I don't know the clerihew, but I think I learned from one of the Lin Carter
> intros that it rhymes with "rabble".
Well, one day James decided to see if he could be a scanner. He
seized a likely looking wire and interfaced it with his cranium. A
bystander asked what he was gibbering as the smoke began to curl,
and the reply was "that's just James' Cranch Babble."
We used to tell that one all the time. And we didn't even know
James.
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Kevin J. Maroney
>There are very few people that I know, and who are loosely or
>tightly associated with fandom, who do -not- read outside the
>genre.
Almost all--more than 95%--of my prose fiction reading is "within the
genre". I will, however, freely admit that I read non-specfic comic
books and a lot of prose nonfiction. So I don't know where I fall on
your count.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
JPSyms
writes:
>
>It's not IMHO the only valid approach. Inviting the people doing the
>fresh new exciting work is also a good approach, with its own
>advantages and disadvantages. Minicon chose guests mostly on what we
>called the "old farts platform" for years. Recently for various
>reasons we've been feeling more free to experiment, to NOT invite the
>oldest best-established authors.
>--
That is why Philcon brings in a Special Guest as well as a Principal
Speaker (or GOH.) The people who choose the guests for Philcon tend to use the
Special Guest as a position for a guest of another type, IE if the Principal
Speaker is an "old fart", the Principal Speaker tends to be a new and
interesting author.
John Syms
Cally Soukup
[reformatted to add line breaks so it's readable. Neil, if your
newsposter doesn't automatically insert line breaks every 70-75
characters, please please PLEASE hit "return" at the end of every line.]
> "Minicon, don't feel persecuted."). There was a recent meeting to
> choose a chair-thing and guests of honor for Minicon 37 (I will
> ignore the first task, as, to paraphrase Alan King: Anyone who runs
> his own con deserves it!). There were the usual suggestions made for
> the usual popular guests (choice deleted to protect the innocent
> seconds or thirds , just in case the individual chooses not to
> accept, no one likes to know they are an after thought). There were
> also a number of non-standard or "Golden Oldies" made as suggestions
> (note, another disclaimer: yes, I made some of them but this is not a
> sour grapes posting) Among the ones I suggested was Katherine MacLean
> http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/authorsM.html#MA
> The number of people who stood there with dropped jaws and "Huh?"s
> written over their faces was staggering. These included a number of
> self-proclaimed feminists who did not remember that between Katy,
> Phyllis Gotlieb and Judith Merril was formed a triumvirate of female
> writers in the latter part of this past century, who kicked down so
> many closed doors that were (at that time) still locked to women.
You know, I'm a feminist (what IS a "self-proclaimed feminist"? Sounds
dismissive to me. "You can only be a REAL feminist if the Feminist
Approval Board certifies you"), and i've been reading SF voraciously since
the mid '70s, and I've never heard of Katherine MacLean before. I
don't understand why you're castigating the politics of people for not
having heard of her. There are a hell of a lot of writers I've never
heard of. And it's getting harder to catch up on the backlist all the
time.
There are more SF books being publised in a year than can possibly be
read by any one person. Back when I started reading SF it was almost
possible to keep up, and even read backlist, but not any more. This is
both a good thing and a bad thing -- the more books being published,
the more books any particular individual likes will be being published.
On the other hand, one can no longer assume that everyone has read the
classics, or will agree on what the classics are. There simply isn't
time.
> If the purpose of the position of "Guest of Honor" is what it is
> named, then perhaps it would be a good idea for convention runners
> AND readers to consider the big picture of the history of the science
> fiction, fantasy and horror genres.
I'm not dismissing her as a writer; I've never knowingly read any of
her work. I'm just wondering if I'm alone in thinking her somewhat
obscure?
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Loren MacGregor
>
> Loren MacGregor <churn...@home.com> wrote:
> >There are very few people that I know, and who are loosely or
> >tightly associated with fandom, who do -not- read outside the
> >genre.
>
> Almost all--more than 95%--of my prose fiction reading is "within the
> genre". I will, however, freely admit that I read non-specfic comic
> books and a lot of prose nonfiction. So I don't know where I fall on
> your count.
I don't know as I have a count as such. But you have participated
in conversations here which indicate you're at least familiar with
(especially) nonfiction books outside the genre.
In rereading Neil's first post while reading Cally's response, I was
reminded of one of Delany and Hacker's intros to an early Quark, in
which (I think) Chip said that even with diligent effort it was
impossible to be familiar with the entirety of contemporary poetry.
It happened that I'd first read that piece while sitting on the
porch of Small World Books on the boardwalk in Venice, California, a
few yards away from an entire wall of poetry chapbooks -most- of
which I would suspect Chip had never seen. In much the same way, it
is almost impossible to be aware of "the entirety of science fiction
and fantasy," and as more shows up, becomes less possible by the
day.
I have a few writers that I gloat over as mine own discoveries,
"lost" writers that I knew when I was growing up because I read
voraciously but whose history seems forgotten. (What about Jerome
Bixby? What about -him-, huh? Okay, maybe -one or two- people know
about him, but still....) But to pick a person and say that there
is a "Ten-Year Race Memory" in science fiction because this person
isn't well-known today seems ... odd.
Surely, there's only a ten-year memory. After all, hardly anyone at
all remembers C.L. Moore, Robert Heinlein, Kate Wilhelm, Robert
Silverberg, Jack Williamson, William Tenn....
-- LJM
Cally Soukup
> Loren MacGregor <churn...@home.com> wrote:
>>There are very few people that I know, and who are loosely or
>>tightly associated with fandom, who do -not- read outside the
>>genre.
> Almost all--more than 95%--of my prose fiction reading is "within the
> genre". I will, however, freely admit that I read non-specfic comic
> books and a lot of prose nonfiction. So I don't know where I fall on
> your count.
Probably 95% of my fiction reading is "within the genre", as well. On
the other hand, that 5% *still* amounts to more books than any of my
coworkers admit to reading for pleasure. And I work in a technical,
literate, field.
David Dyer-Bennet
> There are more SF books being publised in a year than can possibly be
> read by any one person. Back when I started reading SF it was almost
> possible to keep up, and even read backlist, but not any more. This is
> both a good thing and a bad thing -- the more books being published,
> the more books any particular individual likes will be being published.
I hear this position all the time. I feel that less interesting new
SF is appearing now than was appearing in the late 60s and early 70s.
*And* it's harder to find, since there's more stuff to bury it in.
If I automatically liked 3% of SF published, more SF published would
obviously mean more SF I liked published. But actually, my tastes
aren't magically tied to what is published. So 3 times as much SF
published can, quite possibly, mean only half as much SF that I like.
And due to the changes in the mass SF audience, and the publishers
focusing in more on that mass audience in general (bestseller
syndrome), it's quite reasonable to think that the choices are being
made differently than they used to be, and hence the percent of what's
published that I like is *likely* to be different because of this.
If publishers really believed it things worked this way (fixed
percentage of good stuff), wouldn't they be advertising for more
slush, to get that additional amount (fixed percentage) of good stuff
out of it?
Mike Kozlowski
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>I hear this position all the time. I feel that less interesting new
>SF is appearing now than was appearing in the late 60s and early 70s.
>*And* it's harder to find, since there's more stuff to bury it in.
I actually found the '60s and '70s to be so devoid of interesting SF that
I didn't read a single piece of science fiction during that time. Since
then, I've gone back and read some of the work from that era, of course.
>And due to the changes in the mass SF audience, and the publishers
>focusing in more on that mass audience in general (bestseller
>syndrome), it's quite reasonable to think that the choices are being
>made differently than they used to be, and hence the percent of what's
>published that I like is *likely* to be different because of this.
I don't really see the "bestseller syndrome." Sure, there are lots of
generic fantasies out there, but once you've filtered those out, there's
still an awful lot of non-bestsellerish stuff, much of which is pretty
good, and some of which is excellent.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Irv Koch
> Cally Soukup <sou...@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > There are more SF books being publised in a year than can possibly be
> I hear this position all the time. I feel that less interesting new
> SF is appearing now than was appearing in the late 60s and early 70s.
> *And* it's harder to find, since there's more stuff to bury it in.
>
> If I automatically liked 3% of SF published, more SF published would
> obviously mean more SF I liked published. But actually, my tastes
> aren't magically tied to what is published. So 3 times as much SF
> published can, quite possibly, mean only half as much SF that I like.
>
> And due to the changes in the mass SF audience, and the publishers
> focusing in more on that mass audience in general (bestseller
> syndrome), it's quite reasonable to think that the choices are being
> made differently than they used to be, and hence the percent of what's
> published that I like is *likely* to be different because of this.
>
> If publishers really believed it things worked this way (fixed
> percentage of good stuff), wouldn't they be advertising for more
> slush, to get that additional amount (fixed percentage) of good stuff
> out of it?
I think that the percentage of sf&f books that are interesting to me or
otherwise "good" is decreasing, but the absolute number slightly
increasing. The good ones are most certainly harder to find unless you
have a store handy that manages to get almost EVERYTHING. (I do. One
guy even has a standing order ... for EVERYTHING ... and gets a suitable
discount.)
The key answer to your statement about publishers, however, is that they
are neither sane nor consistent from publisher to publisher.
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>Cally Soukup <sou...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> There are more SF books being publised in a year than can possibly be
>> read by any one person. Back when I started reading SF it was almost
>> possible to keep up, and even read backlist, but not any more. This is
>> both a good thing and a bad thing -- the more books being published,
>> the more books any particular individual likes will be being published.
>
>I hear this position all the time. I feel that less interesting new
>SF is appearing now than was appearing in the late 60s and early 70s.
>*And* it's harder to find, since there's more stuff to bury it in.
>
>If I automatically liked 3% of SF published, more SF published would
>obviously mean more SF I liked published. But actually, my tastes
>aren't magically tied to what is published. So 3 times as much SF
>published can, quite possibly, mean only half as much SF that I like.
>
>And due to the changes in the mass SF audience, and the publishers
>focusing in more on that mass audience in general (bestseller
>syndrome), it's quite reasonable to think that the choices are being
>made differently than they used to be, and hence the percent of what's
>published that I like is *likely* to be different because of this.
>
>If publishers really believed it things worked this way (fixed
>percentage of good stuff), wouldn't they be advertising for more
>slush, to get that additional amount (fixed percentage) of good stuff
>out of it?
Well, there is the problem that we can't guarantee that the stuff
that is written and published in a particular era will be to our
liking.
But I do have to say that fifteen years ago I had quit reading the
stuff. And now I'm reading it all the time. Not all of what I'm
reading is exactly contemporary: I'm discovering stuff written
twenty and ten years ago that I couldn't find before because I had
been turned off to the genre.
Notice -- the stuff I liked was always there, wasn't it, but I had
trouble finding it because I was blinded by what I didn't like.
As to proportions, I don't know. And I don't know, now that I
have said this, whether it is a counterexample or a supporting
example to what you're saying.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Dan Kimmel
news:3ac202af...@enews.newsguy.com...
> But I do have to say that fifteen years ago I had quit reading the
> stuff. And now I'm reading it all the time. Not all of what I'm
> reading is exactly contemporary: I'm discovering stuff written
> twenty and ten years ago that I couldn't find before because I had
> been turned off to the genre.
>
> Notice -- the stuff I liked was always there, wasn't it, but I had
> trouble finding it because I was blinded by what I didn't like.
>
> As to proportions, I don't know. And I don't know, now that I
> have said this, whether it is a counterexample or a supporting
> example to what you're saying.
I stopped reading SF in the late '70s and early '80s, except when Isaac
Asimov had something new out. In the mid-'80s someone turned me on to Greg
Bear and David Brin, and then I found William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, and
then someone recommended John Varley and Dan Simmons and Octavia Butler, and
what do you know? I was reading SF again.
I think the problem today is that there is so much junk out there. Look at
the SF section of a typical bookstore thirty years ago was a lot easier as
it consisted largely of SF. Now it consists of lengthy series of media
tie-ins (and I *like* movie and TV SF -- when it's good), and a few brand
name authors. I get my SF now at cons or used bookstores or specialty SF
stores. The only time I pick it up at a regular bookstore is either off the
remainder table or if a favorite author has something just out that I'm will
to spring for the hardcover. The notion of *browsing* SF in a WaldenBooks
or Barnes and Noble just doesn't do the trick any more.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <m2ofuml7...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> >I hear this position all the time. I feel that less interesting new
> >SF is appearing now than was appearing in the late 60s and early 70s.
> >*And* it's harder to find, since there's more stuff to bury it in.
>
> I actually found the '60s and '70s to be so devoid of interesting SF that
> I didn't read a single piece of science fiction during that time. Since
> then, I've gone back and read some of the work from that era, of course.
That's the period when Stranger in a Strange Land came out, and The
Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and The Mote In God's Eye, and The Man in
the High Castle, and Dune, and "'Repent, Harlequin,' Said the Ticktock
Man", and "Soldier, Ask Not", and "Neutron Star", "Gonna Roll the
Bones", and Lord of Light. Hmmm. I'm only up to 1968, not even into
the 70s, and have only touched Hugo winners so far.
Anyway, sorry you didn't like that period. To me it's the very best
period SF has ever had. 3 of my 5 best-ever SF novels came out
between 1962 and 1968, for example. I don't think it's unusual to
consider this an especially good period.
> >And due to the changes in the mass SF audience, and the publishers
> >focusing in more on that mass audience in general (bestseller
> >syndrome), it's quite reasonable to think that the choices are being
> >made differently than they used to be, and hence the percent of what's
> >published that I like is *likely* to be different because of this.
>
> I don't really see the "bestseller syndrome." Sure, there are lots of
> generic fantasies out there, but once you've filtered those out, there's
> still an awful lot of non-bestsellerish stuff, much of which is pretty
> good, and some of which is excellent.
And less of which is published in mass-market form (cheap form). And
people are being discouraged from continuing their writing careers by
the advances being offered, or are dropping back to writing part-time,
or are struggling. Or people are changing what they write to get
putlisher attention.
Mike Kozlowski
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski) writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I hear this position all the time. I feel that less interesting new
>> >SF is appearing now than was appearing in the late 60s and early 70s.
>> >*And* it's harder to find, since there's more stuff to bury it in.
>>
>> I actually found the '60s and '70s to be so devoid of interesting SF that
>> I didn't read a single piece of science fiction during that time. Since
>> then, I've gone back and read some of the work from that era, of course.
>
>period SF has ever had.
That was tongue in cheek -- I was 3 in 1979, so all my reading of that
period came after it was over.
>> I don't really see the "bestseller syndrome." Sure, there are lots of
>> generic fantasies out there, but once you've filtered those out, there's
>> still an awful lot of non-bestsellerish stuff, much of which is pretty
>> good, and some of which is excellent.
>
>And less of which is published in mass-market form (cheap form).
That's definitely true, but not an objection that holds much currency with
me, since I prefer hardcover.
>And
>people are being discouraged from continuing their writing careers by
>the advances being offered, or are dropping back to writing part-time,
>or are struggling. Or people are changing what they write to get
>putlisher attention.
That's doubtless true -- but do you think it's any more true now than it
was in 1965?
--
Mike Kozlowski
If email to this address bounces, try m...@alumni.cs.wisc.edu
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Eloise Beltz-Decker
>
> That was tongue in cheek -- I was 3 in 1979, so all my reading of that
> period came after it was over.
Oh, wow. You're my age. I'm so used to everyone in any given
social group I'm part of being at least ten years older than me that I
just got blindsided by this and had to comment. :-> Yay, bicentennial
babies! :->
BTW, Oscar night, my guy amused me by throwing a blanket over my head and
squatting on the floor and saying, 'Hey, look! We're Crouching Tiger,
Hidden Dragon!' He's a Leo born in the year of the Tiger. I'm a Pisces
born in the year of the Dragon. Yes, he's very catlike and I'm creative
and screwed-up in both systems. :->
Heading to FKO tomorrow afternoon - gah! See y'all there, if you're going.
--
Eloise Beltz-Decker elo...@ripco.com
http://pages.ripco.com/~eloise/
"As Maria walked along the beach, the clouds grew angry, the sea
raged, the wind howled, and the sand was just plain irritated."
- Jeff Kruse of Van Nuys, CA; submitted to the Bulwer-Lytton Contest.
Martin Wisse
>m...@klio.org (Mike Kozlowski) writes:
>
>> In article <m2ofuml7...@gw.dd-b.net>,
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I hear this position all the time. I feel that less interesting new
>> >SF is appearing now than was appearing in the late 60s and early 70s.
>> >*And* it's harder to find, since there's more stuff to bury it in.
>>
>> I actually found the '60s and '70s to be so devoid of interesting SF that
>> I didn't read a single piece of science fiction during that time. Since
>> then, I've gone back and read some of the work from that era, of course.
>
>That's the period when Stranger in a Strange Land came out, and The
This is *not* a recommendation.
>Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and The Mote In God's Eye, and The Man in
>the High Castle, and Dune, and "'Repent, Harlequin,' Said the Ticktock
>Man", and "Soldier, Ask Not", and "Neutron Star", "Gonna Roll the
>Bones", and Lord of Light. Hmmm. I'm only up to 1968, not even into
>the 70s, and have only touched Hugo winners so far.
>
>Anyway, sorry you didn't like that period. To me it's the very best
>period SF has ever had. 3 of my 5 best-ever SF novels came out
>between 1962 and 1968, for example. I don't think it's unusual to
>consider this an especially good period.
Repeat after me: the golden age of science fiction is fourteen ;-)
I think it's fairly difficult to pinpoint any given period as the best
period in sf ever. Certainly in the sixties the genre was still escaping
the straight jacket of the pulps and hadn't even begun to absorb the
effects of New Wave. The explosion of diversity that science fiction is
now hadn't happened yet.
Personally, I like the nineties as a sf decade very very much: Banks,
Egan, MacLeod, Pratchett, MacAuley, Bujold et all are nothing to sneeze
at.
It's a mug's game really. It's not about periods, it's about authors.
I'm just fucking glad it isn't all about Joe Q. Analog saving the
universe from the darkies^w martians anymore.
I also like that sf has such an amazing breadth and width that there is
soo much good and different stuff to read: keeps me from getting bored.
>And less of which is published in mass-market form (cheap form). And
>people are being discouraged from continuing their writing careers by
>the advances being offered, or are dropping back to writing part-time,
>or are struggling. Or people are changing what they write to get
>putlisher attention.
As long as there are more interesting sf books being published then I
can read, buy or even have heard of in any given year I think the genre
is doing alright.
Martin Wisse
--
I made this!
...
...
You must be *very* proud
Martin Wisse
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I think the problem today is that there is so much junk out there. Look at
>the SF section of a typical bookstore thirty years ago was a lot easier as
>it consisted largely of SF. Now it consists of lengthy series of media
>tie-ins (and I *like* movie and TV SF -- when it's good), and a few brand
>name authors. I get my SF now at cons or used bookstores or specialty SF
>stores. The only time I pick it up at a regular bookstore is either off the
>remainder table or if a favorite author has something just out that I'm will
>to spring for the hardcover. The notion of *browsing* SF in a WaldenBooks
>or Barnes and Noble just doesn't do the trick any more.
That has always been the case here in the Netherlands so I've always had
to rely on speciality or second hand bookstores. Fortunately both are
readily available where I live. (American Book Center for new stuff,
especially since they became cheaper then the web again and various
second hand bookstores I know better then toi reveal the location of to
find older stuff...)
Martin Wisse
--
Oh no! Now I have an image of Richard Nixon *and* Ronald Reagan
having sex in the Oval Office. <cue wocka-chicka-wow-wow music>
RN: "Ronnie, get down there and win one for my zipper."
RR: "Well, I see why they call you Tricky Dick." </music>
-Ed Dravecky III, rasseff
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> I have a few writers that I gloat over as mine own discoveries,
> "lost" writers that I knew when I was growing up because I read
> voraciously but whose history seems forgotten. (What about Jerome
> Bixby? What about -him-, huh? Okay, maybe -one or two- people know
> about him, but still....) But to pick a person and say that there
> is a "Ten-Year Race Memory" in science fiction because this person
> isn't well-known today seems ... odd.
I'm a T.L. Sherred man, myself.
> Surely, there's only a ten-year memory. After all, hardly anyone at
> all remembers C.L. Moore, Robert Heinlein, Kate Wilhelm, Robert
> Silverberg, Jack Williamson, William Tenn....
Irony taken, but a thought tangential to this discussion also strikes me.
In a better world, most, or all, the works of such authors would be
available to curious readers.
In our world, only a fraction of their stuff is in print at any given time,
and availability of used books is haphazard. (Thank goodness for
libraries.)
How might a so-called "Information Age," or the age that follows it, provide
for steady availability of old books and stories?
I think technology has arrived, or almost arrived, for making on-line
facsimiles available in massive quantities. But we haven't figured out how
to protect authors' rights to digital stuff, or how to keep books in print
economically for long periods in the current publishing environment.
At worst, we can wait for rights to expire, and hope some
yet-to-be-born kid (or AI?) finds the enthusiasm to type in C.L.
Moore's stories for Project Gutenberg.
--
"If you hold a meteorite | Bill Higgins
up to your ear, | Fermilab
you can hear the sounds of outer space." | Internet:
--Dr. Barry D. Gehm | hig...@fnal.gov
Dorothy J Heydt
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
>> Surely, there's only a ten-year memory. After all, hardly anyone at
>> all remembers C.L. Moore, Robert Heinlein, Kate Wilhelm, Robert
>> Silverberg, Jack Williamson, William Tenn....
Well, I do. But I'm *old.*
>
>At worst, we can wait for rights to expire, and hope some
>yet-to-be-born kid (or AI?) finds the enthusiasm to type in C.L.
>Moore's stories for Project Gutenberg.
I'd be willing to do that, if somebody can square the rights (if
we wait for 'em to expire I'll undoubtedly be dead).
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Martin Wisse
<elo...@ripco.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> That was tongue in cheek -- I was 3 in 1979, so all my reading of that
>> period came after it was over.
>
> Oh, wow. You're my age. I'm so used to everyone in any given
>social group I'm part of being at least ten years older than me that I
>just got blindsided by this and had to comment. :-> Yay, bicentennial
>babies! :->
Tsk, you youngsters these days. Don't know their place, you do *waves
walking stick*
Martin Wisse
--
>English is grammatically promiscuous.
I would have said perversely polymorphous.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden & Lucy Kemnitzer, rasfc
Martin Wisse
wrote:
>In article <Pine.SGI.4.31.01032...@fsgi02.fnal.gov>,
>Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Surely, there's only a ten-year memory. After all, hardly anyone at
>>> all remembers C.L. Moore, Robert Heinlein, Kate Wilhelm, Robert
>>> Silverberg, Jack Williamson, William Tenn....
>
>Well, I do. But I'm *old.*
Pah, I do to, and I'm not.
>>At worst, we can wait for rights to expire, and hope some
>>yet-to-be-born kid (or AI?) finds the enthusiasm to type in C.L.
>>Moore's stories for Project Gutenberg.
>
>I'd be willing to do that, if somebody can square the rights (if
>we wait for 'em to expire I'll undoubtedly be dead).
The most recent Locus (feb 2001) I got was saying how printing on demand
was really started being noticeable last year. With any luck, this will
be an impetus to get more out of print material available.
In theory everything ever printed should be available this way, for a
fairly reasonable price. In practice...?
Michael J. Lowrey
> The most recent Locus (feb 2001) I got was saying how printing on demand
> was really started being noticeable last year. With any luck, this will
> be an impetus to get more out of print material available.
>
> In theory everything ever printed should be available this way, for a
> fairly reasonable price. In practice...?
Well, for one thing, some publishers seem to be ready to use "print on
demand" technology as an excuse to say, "You're not Out Of Print, so we
don't have to revert your rights to you." The result: the writer has
no way of regaining control of her/his work and shopping it around to a
publisher who might actually do something about marketing the work,
because the P-O-D chap makes it technically available (to anybody
sophisticated enough to order it printed).
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
NWU At-Large Local
Heather Anne Nicoll
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
> >
> > That was tongue in cheek -- I was 3 in 1979, so all my reading of that
> > period came after it was over.
>
> Oh, wow. You're my age. I'm so used to everyone in any given
> social group I'm part of being at least ten years older than me that I
> just got blindsided by this and had to comment. :-> Yay, bicentennial
> babies! :->
Oh, just lord it over us young'ns, why don't you. ;)
- Darkhawk, born just before the blizzard of '78
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Sometimes I pray for silence; sometimes I pray for soul. . . .
- Meat Loaf, "I'd Do Anything For Love"
Heather Anne Nicoll
> Surely, there's only a ten-year memory. After all, hardly anyone at
> all remembers C.L. Moore, Robert Heinlein, Kate Wilhelm, Robert
> Silverberg, Jack Williamson, William Tenn....
Hey. I just discovered William Tenn, thanks to meeting him at Boskone.
Whee!
- Darkhawk, feeling a sudden and profound need for bookcasen
to put her copy of The Tenn Book on
Loren Joseph MacGregor
>Loren MacGregor <churn...@home.com> wrote:
>> Surely, there's only a ten-year memory. After all, hardly anyone at
>> all remembers C.L. Moore, Robert Heinlein, Kate Wilhelm, Robert
>> Silverberg, Jack Williamson, William Tenn....
>Hey. I just discovered William Tenn, thanks to meeting him at Boskone.
>Whee!
In one of my own periods of fan-boy hero-worship, I once found myself
the recipient of an apology from Alfted Bester, who wanted to break
off our conversation to talk with William Tenn. I admired them both
inordinately.
Of course, then I read Bester's -The Computer Connection-, and it
broke the spell for me. I still think his -Demolished Man- is
wonderful, and his short stories are superb. But I really can't
read the bulk of his novels with any enjoyment. *sigh*
You'll enjoy William Tenn's writing.
-- LJM
Heather Anne Nicoll
> You'll enjoy William Tenn's writing.
Oh yes. Brooks was tickled by the concept of "On Venus, Have We Got a
Rabbi", so we went to the reading thereof, and then promptly went up to
the NESFA booth in the dealers' room and each got a copy of the big book
o'Tenn.
And I didn't even have to put a quarter in the pun jar for saying, "Two
twenties for two Tenns" because it wasn't a meeting.
- Darkhawk, needing to get back in the swing of
attending meetings
michael paine
"Martin Wisse" <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:3acd40cb...@news.demon.nl...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:40:19 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <Pine.SGI.4.31.01032...@fsgi02.fnal.gov>,
> >Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Surely, there's only a ten-year memory. After all, hardly anyone at
> >>> all remembers C.L. Moore, Robert Heinlein, Kate Wilhelm, Robert
> >>> Silverberg, Jack Williamson, William Tenn....
> >
> >Well, I do. But I'm *old.*
>
> Pah, I do to, and I'm not.
>
> >>At worst, we can wait for rights to expire, and hope some
> >>yet-to-be-born kid (or AI?) finds the enthusiasm to type in C.L.
> >>Moore's stories for Project Gutenberg.
> >
> >I'd be willing to do that, if somebody can square the rights (if
> >we wait for 'em to expire I'll undoubtedly be dead).
>
> The most recent Locus (feb 2001) I got was saying how printing on demand
> was really started being noticeable last year. With any luck, this will
> be an impetus to get more out of print material available.
>
> In theory everything ever printed should be available this way, for a
> fairly reasonable price. In practice...?
Most of the backlist of Brian Aldiss should be out in the near future from a
print-on-demand publisher, House of Stratus. If they survive some teething
problems (fairly phenomenal start-up costs, from what I've heard). From the
p.o.d. books I've seen so far, the production quality doesn't quite cut it;
I imagine that could change soon. For the thing to be viable I think major
publishers will need to partake, running p.o.d. alongside conventional
printing: I don't doubt that you can make money with p.o.d., but you'd need
investors content to wait a long time to see a profit come in if you
specialised in it. And there are some interesting marketing issues, he said,
having been faced with making buying decisions with regard to the complete
works of James Hadley Chase (which would you choose?).
Still, it would be wonderful to be able to pick up some of those gems
destined for oblivion otherwise - something from Vincent King, for example.
Mike,
who is keen to see if Report on Probability A lives up to his memories of it
Kip Williams
>
> Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@garcia.efn.org> wrote:
> > You'll enjoy William Tenn's writing.
>
> Oh yes. Brooks was tickled by the concept of "On Venus, Have We Got a
> Rabbi", so we went to the reading thereof, and then promptly went up to
> the NESFA booth in the dealers' room and each got a copy of the big book
> o'Tenn.
>
> And I didn't even have to put a quarter in the pun jar for saying, "Two
> twenties for two Tenns" because it wasn't a meeting.
I believe William Tenn was the author that our friend Sue Crites was
talking to, back at MileHiCon 10. (It's easy enough to remember that
he was GoH at that one.) They were having a nice conversation, but
he was starting to look at her oddly. So she looked down and noticed
that as they were chatting, she had been cutting his meat up into
little pieces for him.
The joys of motherhood.
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Richard Horton
Wisse) wrote:
>I'm just fucking glad it isn't all about Joe Q. Analog saving the
>universe from the darkies^w martians anymore.
Don't want to pick too much on you in particular, Martin, but I've
just been reading some of the early '50s magazines, Astounding, F&SF,
Planet, Thrilling Wonder, etc., and while such stories certainly
existed, there were a =lot= of stories about the stupid, colonialist,
racist, Earthmen getting there deserved comeuppance from the noble
martians/venusians/"greenies". I would tend to say there were more
stories advancing a variant of the latter attitude than otherwise.
The sins of that era were much more sexism and bad writing than
racism, IMO.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <tdssbtge8tdrkjo9l...@4ax.com>,
>Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>George C. Chesbro
>>>
>>>http://www.dangerousdwarf.com/main.html
>>>
>>>This is a very short segment (with some links) of a very long list.
>>
>>What do these four writers have in common, other than being dead?
>>I've read some Smith and a lot of Chesbro (basically, everything he'd
>>published as of whatever point in the early 1990s when someone said
>>"here, read this.") They're very different in style and subjects.
>
> Chesbro's dead?
No.
Sorry, brain glitch.
Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Lucy Kemnitzer
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
All of my local bookstores have the kind habit of having a
separate section within SF/F which is devoted to media SF. This
is nice for everybody: the people who like that kind of book can
find it, and the people who want to read other things are not
blinded by the same covers showing up over and over on the shelves
where they're browsing.
Actually, there's a Borders locally, and I don't know if they do
that or not. I've got too many local favorites to have learned my
way around the new chain. I'm not boycotting it, though: when
they first came to town there was a lot of protest about their
business and labor practices in other communities, and I think
that the local management has made a lot of promises to be on
their best behavior here. Certainly I've heard they pay better
than the average here (which is something like $7.50 an hour,
really, average, in a town where a room in a small apartment can
cost $900 a month).
Lucy Kemnitzer
Ed Dravecky III
Eep. I was born just before the election of '68. Of course, I
spent the whole weekend feeling like an Old Man.
1) This was the spring SciFiExpo.com Expo and Toy Show and the guests
included Gil Gerard, Erin Gray, and Felix Silla, all of "Buck
Rogers" fame. So there I am: meeting one of my childhood heroes,
hearing fascinating stories from Felix, and marvelling that Erin
Gray hasn't aged in 20 years. Then it hits me: The show I enjoyed
so much had ended its run 20 years ago. Two decades. Eep. [1]
2) I'm recovering from a leg infection (long, icky story) so the
doctor has me on antibiotics and keeping my leg up as much as
possible to drain the fluid. So there I am, coming home at the
end of the day, putting my feet up and asking my girlfriend if
she knows where "my pills" are. I am become my father. Eep.
3) I'm the Emergency Holographic Volunteer Coordinator. This show was
a test to make sure I could run one on my own in preparation for a
"split squad" weekend in June. While discussing the finer points
of "Buck Rogers" and the putrid (Felix's word) second season, I
discovered that our youngest volunteer is 19 and he helpfully
pointed out that he was born in 1982, after "Buck Rogers" had left
the air. 1982. During Ronald Reagan's first term. EEP!
4) My doctor's office called with the bloodwork results from last
week's exam and I'm fine. Everything internal is still fully
operational and my blood sugar is fine. Barring major injury
and assuming I can lose some of this weight, I'll be around for
another 40+ years of this nonsense. EEP! EEP! EEP!
[1] In fairness, I get this one every show. Our July show features
both Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict from "Battlestar Galactica" so
I'll get to "Eep." yet again in four months.
--
Ed Dravecky III
ed3 at panix dot com "I have no life--just e-mail." -The Norm
Bernard Peek
<dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>Cally Soukup <sou...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> There are more SF books being publised in a year than can possibly be
>> read by any one person. Back when I started reading SF it was almost
>> possible to keep up, and even read backlist, but not any more. This is
>> both a good thing and a bad thing -- the more books being published,
>> the more books any particular individual likes will be being published.
>
>I hear this position all the time. I feel that less interesting new
>SF is appearing now than was appearing in the late 60s and early 70s.
>*And* it's harder to find, since there's more stuff to bury it in.
In about November last year I was looking at the publishers' web-sites
and thinking that there were no upcoming SF books that I really wanted
to read. I didn't have any must-read-now titles on the bookshelf either.
Very depressing.
So far this year I've discovered China Mieville, Doyle & Macdonald, Nina
Kiriki Hoffman, Kage Baker, Philip Pullman, Jan Siegel and Matt Ruff. I
now have more than a dozen must-read-now books, none of them by authors
I'd read before this year. I've got as many again on the wants-list too.
Now all I need is the time to read them.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
David Langford
wrote:
Author-friendly POD publishers have of course seen ways around this. For
example, Wildside Press and its Cosmos imprint have a standard contract
with a four-year term; the author can simply decide not to renew.
On the other hand, Some Publishers could be endlessly difficult about
admitting that something was out of print even under the old system....
Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.co.uk/
Kip Williams
>
> Heather Anne Nicoll <dark...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> > - Darkhawk, born just before the blizzard of '78
>
> Eep. I was born just before the election of '68. Of course, I
> spent the whole weekend feeling like an Old Man.
>
> 1) This was the spring SciFiExpo.com Expo and Toy Show and the guests
> included Gil Gerard, Erin Gray, and Felix Silla, all of "Buck
> Rogers" fame. So there I am: meeting one of my childhood heroes,
> hearing fascinating stories from Felix, and marvelling that Erin
> Gray hasn't aged in 20 years. Then it hits me: The show I enjoyed
> so much had ended its run 20 years ago. Two decades. Eep. [1]
Yeah, and some of us have just realized for the first time that
people born in 1960 are now over 40.
This is like the milestone, back around 1979, when I realized that I
was older than every one of the women posing for _Playboy_. Oh, once
in a while they do a pictorial on "older women" in their late 30s,
but they're a sideshow.
I think I'll stay 45 now for ever and ever.
Chris Clayton
Ed Dravecky III wrote:
> Heather Anne Nicoll wrote:
> > - Darkhawk, born just before the blizzard of '78
>
> Eep. I was born just before the election of '68. Of course, I
> spent the whole weekend feeling like an Old Man.
>
> 2) So there I am, coming home at the
> end of the day, putting my feet up and asking my girlfriend if
> she knows where "my pills" are. I am become my father. Eep.
I remember this reaction. I looked into my closet, and saw all the
suits (this was pre-business casual) and white & striped shirts, and
had my first "I'm my father!" moment. Fortunately, a good friend
pointed out "No, you're not. You just have your father's closet."
It's an important distinction to keep ahold of.
> 3) While discussing the finer points
> of "Buck Rogers" and the putrid (Felix's word) second season, I
> discovered that our youngest volunteer is 19 and he helpfully
> pointed out that he was born in 1982, after "Buck Rogers" had left
> the air. 1982. During Ronald Reagan's first term. EEP!
I'll never forget the day (early 80s)I was talking to someone at work
about Watergate, and having one of the newer hires tell me he'd read
about it in history class. I finally understood my parent's amusement
when I talked about WWII.
I also remember when my son was in the hospital as an infant, and
the candy-striper I was talking to turned out to be the resident
in charge of the ward. The pediatric cardiologist who checked
David out was just barely able to raise a beard. Doogies everywhere.
(And how long is it before we'll have to explain that expression?)
I second, and raise, your "EEP!"
(And David is just fine, FWIW. This was almost 10 years ago.)
--
Chris Clayton
cla...@rust.net
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>I think I'll stay 45 now for ever and ever.
Having reached the near vicinity of 60, I intend to stay 60 for
the next decade or two. It's a nice round number and, if you're
an ancient Babylonian, divine. If you're merely human it has its
drawbacks, or rather the diabetes/bloodpressure/lipid stuff
attendant on it has. But it beats the alternative...
Loren Joseph MacGregor
>In article <3AC3328A...@home.com>, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think I'll stay 45 now for ever and ever.
>Having reached the near vicinity of 60, I intend to stay 60 for
>the next decade or two. It's a nice round number and, if you're
>an ancient Babylonian, divine. If you're merely human it has its
>drawbacks, or rather the diabetes/bloodpressure/lipid stuff
>attendant on it has. But it beats the alternative...
I loved being 39; it created fond memories of Jack Benny. But I
waved goodbye to that age 11 years ago.
-- LJM
Lenny Bailes
I'm a somewhat stodgier and lumpier 26, myself.
--
Lenny Bailes | len...@slip.net | http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~lennyb
Mark Evans
: I know some committees try to choose a GoH who will be a "draw" for
: their con.
: Speaking for myself only, I have never been drawn to a con by the GoH,
: but I have often been introduced to the work of a writer as a result of
: their being Honoured by the con committee. I think that's the way it
: should be.
I also know that concoms sometimes have to go with who is available. I
have had invited GoHs decline due to health, schedule & work conflicts,
religous conflicts, and the occasional "I'm too burned out on cons". It
is getting to the point where a GoH has to be invited 2 years in advance
to fit into the schedule. And booking a hotel in central Ohio has to be
done 18 months in advance with no guarentee that the date you want will
be available. Between juggling hotels and guests I am sometimes amazed
that anything gets done.
--
Mark Evans
Established in 1951.
Del Cotter
Alan Winston <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> said:
>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>David Langford <ans...@cix.co.uk> said:
>>>Neil Belsky wrote:
>>>>95% of fans (readers, convention goers or otherwise have probably never
>>>>heard of these people (even though Cabel and Smith both enjoyed reprints
>>>>under the Ballantine Adult Fantasy banner
>>>
>>>The other side of the coin is that a good many fans remember James Branch
>>>Cabell well enough to be able to spell his surname.
>>
>>But not often well enough to able to pronounce it, eh?
>>
>><cue clerihew>
>
>I don't know the clerihew, but I think I learned from one of the Lin Carter
>intros that it rhymes with "rabble".
I was hoping Dave would step in and supply it, because the clerihew form
doesn't lend itself to memorising the exact words. But FWIW this is how
I remember it:
James Branch Cabell
Excoriated the rabble
He condemned to the nethermost depths of hell
Those who insisted on pronouncing his name Cabell
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
Max
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> said:
>I was hoping Dave would step in and supply it, because the clerihew form
>doesn't lend itself to memorising the exact words. But FWIW this is how
>I remember it:
I guess the pronunciation could differ but if it adds any weight: I
have a colleague named Cabell and his name rhymes with rabble.
--
No sig here
Seth Breidbart
David Langford <ans...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>On the other hand, Some Publishers could be endlessly difficult about
>admitting that something was out of print even under the old system....
For instance, they'd leave 10 copies in the warehouse, and be unable
or unwilling to find them. So bookstores couldn't get the book, but
it was still "in print" because the publisher (claimed to) had copies.
Seth
Vicki Rosenzweig
Yes. I asked about a book at Books of Wonder a couple of months ago,
and the person at the information desk looked it up and found it
had been "out of stock" since late 1999. That's all she said, until
I said something like "and we know what that means." I wonder what
would have happened if someone, on a query like that, had innocently
wanted to know when it was likely to be available.