Ursula Le Guin is next SFWA Grand Master

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Horton

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 9:56:45 PM1/7/03
to
And about time!

I've posted several times that she is the obvious next Grand Master,
and I'm pleased to see that SFWA has at last agreed.

--
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.tangentonline.com)

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 12:57:52 PM1/8/03
to

"Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:NrMS9.338$Rs.17...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

> And about time!
>
> I've posted several times that she is the obvious next Grand Master,
> and I'm pleased to see that SFWA has at last agreed.

Me too, but I'm wondering how long before the complaints about liberal bias
in the SFWA start pouring in, along with the demands that the next Grand
Master be (God help us) Jerry Pournelle.


Anthony Nance

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 1:18:08 PM1/8/03
to
In article <AEZS9.6869$Ul.354...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,

Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
not just Mike.)
- Tony

steve miller

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 2:00:04 PM1/8/03
to
On 8 Jan 2003 18:18:08 GMT, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance)
wrote:

>Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
>not just Mike.)
>- Tony

Welll ... I'm not so sure that Anne McCaffrey should be discounted, if
one wants to talk about influence on the field; but certainly Robert
Silverberg has got to be near the top of the list, and I 'd guess
Harlan Ellison would have a shot. I don't think longevity by itself
should be the crowning criteria (as some suggest); I could see
reasonable argument made for Russ, or Delany. I also suggest a
longshot -- Peter Beagle.

Steve

www.korval.com/srmcat1.htm Liaden Universe chapbooks
www.embiid.net -- Lee & Miller electronic editions
The Tomorrow Log on sale now at amazon.com & Embiid

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 2:04:21 PM1/8/03
to

"Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:avhq10$n0k$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...

>
> Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
> not just Mike.)

As was suggested upthread (or in the parallel thread) Harlan Ellison. He's
been around forever, has done award-winning work in all categories of SF
(except novels, oddly enough), and has remained active and highly visible in
the field.


Louann Miller

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 4:15:40 PM1/8/03
to
On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:19:46 -0500, Jon Meltzer
<jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:04:21 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
><mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
>>> not just Mike.)
>>
>>As was suggested upthread (or in the parallel thread) Harlan Ellison. He's
>>been around forever, has done award-winning work in all categories of SF
>>(except novels, oddly enough), and has remained active and highly visible in
>>the field.
>

>He'll get it, but there will be an interesting discussion among the
>selection committee ...

This isn't the same as the Grand Master Hugo that gets given out from
time to time, is it? Because I had the vague impression there was one
of those too.

Louann

William December Starr

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 4:34:47 PM1/8/03
to
In article <mjso1vc20mnnqtcnk...@4ax.com>,
s...@korval.com said:

> Welll ... I'm not so sure that Anne McCaffrey should be discounted,
> if one wants to talk about influence on the field; but certainly
> Robert Silverberg has got to be near the top of the list, and I 'd
> guess Harlan Ellison would have a shot.

Is -- and this is intended as a serious question, not a piece of
snide Harlan-bashing -- is Ellison, with his strenuous denials that
what he writes is science fiction, indeed a member of the Science
Fiction Writers of America?

And, come to think of it, is SFWA membership a prerequisite for being
named a Grand Master by them?

-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

steve miller

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 5:42:11 PM1/8/03
to
On 8 Jan 2003 16:34:47 -0500, wds...@panix.com (William December
Starr) wrote:

> is Ellison, with his strenuous denials that
>what he writes is science fiction, indeed a member of the Science
>Fiction Writers of America?

Yes; as of a year or two ago.

>And, come to think of it, is SFWA membership a prerequisite for being
>named a Grand Master by them?

No.

Andrew Wheeler

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 8:52:59 PM1/8/03
to
steve miller wrote:
>
> On 8 Jan 2003 16:34:47 -0500, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
> > is Ellison, with his strenuous denials that
> >what he writes is science fiction, indeed a member of the Science
> >Fiction Writers of America?
>
> Yes; as of a year or two ago.

Wasn't he named a free lifetime member at a Neb Banquet? *That's* one
way to keep him in the fold -- declare that he's a member whether he
wants to be or not! <grin>

> >And, come to think of it, is SFWA membership a prerequisite for being
> >named a Grand Master by them?
>
> No.

Witness the Great Lem Fiasco of a few decades ago.

Anyway, I didn't say nice things anywhere else in these threads, so let
me say here that Le Guin was, to me, *the* one obvious "shoulda" who
wasn't yet a Grand Master. I'm glad SFWA agrees with me -- though I
imagine Sharon Lee deserves most of the credit.

It's great to see it happen. And I do hope we get Silverberg next year
(though that may be mostly because I just read four of his novels in a row).

I do wish SFWA would think of a way to honor those who died before they
could be named Grand Masters -- Phil Dick and Roger Zelazny are the ones
I most wish were in that company. "Dead Masters," anybody?

Hey, another thought -- is there an "Author Emeritus" this year? (Is
that program even still active?)

--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"Oh, hey! We're rehearsing a...a scene for the upcoming company play,
called, ah,....'Put That Thing Back Where It Came From, Or So Help Me!'
It's a musical!"

Andrew Wheeler

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 8:59:05 PM1/8/03
to

There used to be a very large group of people who loathed Ellison (and
vice versa), though I think most of those feuds have died down. He also
spent a long time loudly denying he was a science fiction writer (which,
indeed, he really isn't -- he usually writes a kind of fantasy story
which sometimes uses SFnal imagery), which annoyed some other people he
wasn't actively feuding with. (Then again, SFWA is now officially for
fantasy as well, and he certainly fits under the widened definition.)

If Grand Mastership were given out by cold, remorseless intellects, he'd
be a shoo-in. But it's given out by SF writers, instead...

I'd be surprised if his name hasn't come up in SFWA circles a couple of
times already, but I'd be even more surprised (happily, though) if he
someday does become a GM.

Richard Horton

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 11:30:19 PM1/8/03
to
On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:00:04 GMT, steve miller
<che...@starswarmnews.com> wrote:

>On 8 Jan 2003 18:18:08 GMT, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance)
>wrote:
>
>>Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
>>not just Mike.)
>>- Tony
>
>Welll ... I'm not so sure that Anne McCaffrey should be discounted, if
>one wants to talk about influence on the field;

I can only reiterate that I disagree.

> but certainly Robert
>Silverberg has got to be near the top of the list, and I 'd guess
>Harlan Ellison would have a shot. I don't think longevity by itself
>should be the crowning criteria (as some suggest); I could see
>reasonable argument made for Russ, or Delany. I also suggest a
>longshot -- Peter Beagle.

Beagle is an interesting suggestion, but I don't think he's been
prolific enough nor close enough to the center of the field.

If people are really worried about "liberal bias" in selection of
Grand Masters, the obvious choice is Gene Wolfe. Other than he, the
only serious potential GM who probably isn't somewhat to the left
might be Silverberg (I don't know much about his politics, actually).
Or Niven, I suppose, but I don't think he sustained excellence for
long enough to be a GM.

Harry Erwin

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 5:07:44 AM1/9/03
to
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:

What's wrong with Jerry (IYHO)?
--
Harry Erwin <http://www.theworld.com/~herwin/>

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 9:34:05 AM1/9/03
to
In article <1foijkk.b5ntma1pu56uoN%her...@theworld.com>,

He's a really minor writer. Or at least, I quit reading him when I realized
that I'd forget what was in his books just about as soon as I finished
reading them.

Seriously, what's striking about his work?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Bumper stickers *and* buttons

War is how Americans learn geography

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 3:06:23 PM1/9/03
to

"Harry Erwin" <her...@theworld.com> wrote in message
news:1foijkk.b5ntma1pu56uoN%her...@theworld.com...

He's a mediocre writer: flat prose, uninteresting characters, plots
consisting of dull spots between battle scenes. And didactic as hell: his
books are full of political diatribes masquerading as dialog.
Unfortunately, that kind of thing succeeds these days. Pournelle is the
father of Military-SF, and as such has a lot to answer for.

His BYTE columns were irritating too -- so much pontification, so little
knowledge or understanding, but that's OT.


Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 4:08:58 PM1/9/03
to
Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:34:05 GMT, Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix1.netaxs.com>:

> In article <1foijkk.b5ntma1pu56uoN%her...@theworld.com>,
> Harry Erwin <her...@theworld.com> wrote:
>>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Me too, but I'm wondering how long before the complaints about liberal bias
>>> in the SFWA start pouring in, along with the demands that the next Grand
>>> Master be (God help us) Jerry Pournelle.
>>What's wrong with Jerry (IYHO)?
> He's a really minor writer. Or at least, I quit reading him when I realized
> that I'd forget what was in his books just about as soon as I finished
> reading them.
> Seriously, what's striking about his work?

I don't think "a really minor writer" is a good description of him at
all.

I do like him, but I don't think he's earned a Grand Master for his
solo work. I am very fond of _King David's Spaceship_. _There Will Be
War_ is a superb series with a distinct editorial voice, and I wish all
anthologies would pay very close attention to how TWBW works. The rest
of his CoDominion books, Falkenberg, and the first Janissaries book are
mildly cheesy, but do at least treat military SF with some dignity;
they're not just gunporn like most.

But there should be a GM award for the hivemind "Jerry Pournelle &
Larry Niven". Neither one *quite* deserves it solo, though Larry's
closer, and IMO both are more deserving than Le Guin, who wrote maybe 6
good books more than 25 years ago and lots of crud since. Voting her a
GM is like voting Spider Robinson a GM. It's a mockery.

On the gripping hand (and note where that phrase comes from), it's a
meaningless title, since you have to be at the top of the field, popular
with the current administration, oldish, and yet still living when they
get around to you. This means that, say, Frank Herbert doesn't get one.
Nor John Brunner. Nor Keith Laumer.

--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_

David Bilek

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 4:33:18 PM1/9/03
to

Huh? Le Guin has more talent in her little finger than either
Pournelle or Niven have in their entire bodies.

-David

Harry Erwin

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 6:28:34 PM1/9/03
to
Jon Meltzer <jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> His fiction isn't that good, IMHO.

It's decent--better than a lot of the 'old masters'.

Harry Erwin

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 6:28:35 PM1/9/03
to
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote:

> In article <1foijkk.b5ntma1pu56uoN%her...@theworld.com>,
> Harry Erwin <her...@theworld.com> wrote:
> >Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> >> news:NrMS9.338$Rs.17...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > And about time!
> >> >
> >> > I've posted several times that she is the obvious next Grand Master,
> >> > and I'm pleased to see that SFWA has at last agreed.
> >>
> >> Me too, but I'm wondering how long before the complaints about liberal bias
> >> in the SFWA start pouring in, along with the demands that the next Grand
> >> Master be (God help us) Jerry Pournelle.
> >
> >What's wrong with Jerry (IYHO)?
>
> He's a really minor writer. Or at least, I quit reading him when I realized
> that I'd forget what was in his books just about as soon as I finished
> reading them.
>
> Seriously, what's striking about his work?

He has interesting ideas, and he tells a good story. He's had staying
power.

Tyson Patterson

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 6:47:49 PM1/9/03
to

"Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:avhq10$n0k$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...

Robert Silverberg and C. J. Cherryh would be my choices for the next 2.
After that, maybe Niven. In the "too young but should get there if they
keep writing good" category, I would put Bear, Bujold, and maybe Willis.

Tyson Patterson


A.C.

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 7:04:41 PM1/9/03
to
"Tyson Patterson" <cptd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FSnT9.120092$Hs2.11...@kent.svc.tds.net...

> Robert Silverberg and C. J. Cherryh would be my choices for the next 2.
> After that, maybe Niven. In the "too young but should get there if they
> keep writing good" category, I would put Bear, Bujold, and maybe Willis.

William Gibson.

--
nomadi...@hotmail.com | http://nomadic.simspace.net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand
Russell


John Schilling

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 7:58:24 PM1/9/03
to
her...@theworld.com (Harry Erwin) writes:

>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:


I am as big a fan of Pournelle as you are likely to find, but even I don't
think he has enough first-rate solo work to be in the running for Grand
Master. If we give him full credit for everything that is good in the
Niven/Pournelle collaborations, certainly, but that's a tricky thing to
do with any fairness.

Is a shared Grand Mastership a possibility?


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Brandon Ray

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 9:22:38 PM1/9/03
to

Harry Erwin wrote:

I'm trying to think of an example, and I'm comin' up blank.

--
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! -- Homer Simpson


Brandon Ray

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 9:26:35 PM1/9/03
to

Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:

> I don't think "a really minor writer" is a good description of him at
> all.
>
> I do like him, but I don't think he's earned a Grand Master for his
> solo work. I am very fond of _King David's Spaceship_. _There Will Be
> War_ is a superb series with a distinct editorial voice, and I wish all
> anthologies would pay very close attention to how TWBW works. The rest
> of his CoDominion books, Falkenberg, and the first Janissaries book are
> mildly cheesy, but do at least treat military SF with some dignity;
> they're not just gunporn like most.

Tastes vary. I can't think of a solo Pournelle that I would care to read a second
time. Now, if services as an *editor* are factored in (I don't know; are they?)
then you might have a point. He's been involved with some damned fine
anthologies.

> But there should be a GM award for the hivemind "Jerry Pournelle &
> Larry Niven". Neither one *quite* deserves it solo, though Larry's
> closer, and IMO both are more deserving than Le Guin, who wrote maybe 6
> good books more than 25 years ago and lots of crud since. Voting her a
> GM is like voting Spider Robinson a GM. It's a mockery.
>

N&P have written one outstanding collaboration (Mote), and two or three that are
good enough to be worth a reread every few years ("Lucifer's Hammer", "Inferno"
and "Footfall"). The rest of their corpus, imho, is unremarkable.

> On the gripping hand (and note where that phrase comes from), it's a
> meaningless title, since you have to be at the top of the field, popular
> with the current administration, oldish, and yet still living when they
> get around to you. This means that, say, Frank Herbert doesn't get one.
> Nor John Brunner. Nor Keith Laumer.
>

It's a true shame that the people you mention (along with some others) don't
qualify. Does anyone know why GM's have to be still living?

Brenda W. Clough

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 8:58:36 PM1/9/03
to
Brandon Ray wrote:


It's a quirk of the rules -- the same as for the Nobel Prize, for which
you also have to be alive.

Brenda

--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at http://www.analogsf.com/0202/maybesometime.html

My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/

Richard Horton

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 9:18:51 PM1/9/03
to
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:04:41 GMT, "A.C."
<nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:

>"Tyson Patterson" <cptd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:FSnT9.120092$Hs2.11...@kent.svc.tds.net...
>
>> Robert Silverberg and C. J. Cherryh would be my choices for the next 2.
>> After that, maybe Niven. In the "too young but should get there if they
>> keep writing good" category, I would put Bear, Bujold, and maybe Willis.
>
>William Gibson.

Cherryh is an interesting thought. She should be considered
eventually -- still a bit young, though.

Joe Haldeman is a name I should have mentioned.

David Bilek

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 9:48:59 PM1/9/03
to
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:04:41 GMT, "A.C."
><nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Tyson Patterson" <cptd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:FSnT9.120092$Hs2.11...@kent.svc.tds.net...
>>
>>> Robert Silverberg and C. J. Cherryh would be my choices for the next 2.
>>> After that, maybe Niven. In the "too young but should get there if they
>>> keep writing good" category, I would put Bear, Bujold, and maybe Willis.
>>
>>William Gibson.
>
>Cherryh is an interesting thought. She should be considered
>eventually -- still a bit young, though.
>
>Joe Haldeman is a name I should have mentioned.

Why do you consider Cherryh "too young" and then mention Haldeman
given than Cherryh is a couple years older?

They started publishing within a year or two of one another as well.

-David

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 10:58:19 PM1/9/03
to
In article <8pqr1v06s613jjt0l...@4ax.com>,
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:

Er, don't forget, there's "good Ursula" and "bad Ursula"...

Having said that, I hasten to add that I fully agree with granting her a
Grand Master. When she's on target, Le Guin is formidable. And a major
influence in (& outside) the genre. And just about the only
literarily-respectable SF writer who's secure enough to be proud of
being known as a *science-fiction* writer.

But it is intriguing to consider a N&P joint-Grandmaster -- some of
their collaborations are just about as good as SF gets. Surely SFWA
shouldn't shrink from a two-headed Grand Master...

Now, back to Bun-Bun -- Riff's wooden-stake Gatling-gun for dealing with
the vampire crisis was... impressive (c. 5/99). If not completely
perfected. Let me check my notes...

Ah. More like Jan-Feb: http://www.sluggy.com/

Worship the comic! Do we have awards for this sort of thing?

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

--
"Turn around and smile, fat-boy. You're on candid gun-scope."
-- Bun-Bun to Santa

Peter D. Tillman

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 12:04:10 AM1/10/03
to
In article <tillman-58AEBB...@news.fu-berlin.de>,

"Peter D. Tillman" [ie me] <til...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:


> Now, back to Bun-Bun -- Riff's wooden-stake Gatling-gun for dealing with
> the vampire crisis was... impressive (c. 5/99). If not completely
> perfected. Let me check my notes...
>
> Ah. More like Jan-Feb: http://www.sluggy.com/
>
> Worship the comic! Do we have awards for this sort of thing?
>

Heh. Now up to Bun-Bun's recovery from Santa's smart-bomb attack:

http://www.sluggy.com/w/990614.html

The scene: Bun-Bun has a telemarketer and her kids tied up and hanging
over a piranha-tank.

TM Mom: Look, I don't know who you are, or how you managed to get that
tank into my living room...

Bun-Bun: The water tank was no problem. Finding the Rio Sao piranhas
was tough.
.
.
.

Kid (still suspended over piranha tank): Mr. Fuzbutt is cool!

I love this stuff.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman, new Sluggy fanboy.

--
Kid (earlier): This rabbit is boring. Can we trade it for a ferret?

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 1:06:01 AM1/10/03
to
"Peter D. Tillman" <til...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote in message
news:tillman-58AEBB...@news.fu-berlin.de...

> In article <8pqr1v06s613jjt0l...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) wrote:
> >
> .
> > >
> > > But there should be a GM award for the hivemind "Jerry Pournelle &
> > >Larry Niven". Neither one *quite* deserves it solo, though Larry's
> > >closer, and IMO both are more deserving than Le Guin, who wrote maybe 6
> > >good books more than 25 years ago and lots of crud since. Voting her a
> > >GM is like voting Spider Robinson a GM. It's a mockery.
> > >
> >
> > Huh? Le Guin has more talent in her little finger than either
> > Pournelle or Niven have in their entire bodies.
> >
>
> Er, don't forget, there's "good Ursula" and "bad Ursula"...

"Bad Ursula" is when she lets her politics overwhelm her story-telling. By
that criterion there has never been any "good Pournelle", and not much "good
Niven and Pournelle".


Nicholas Whyte

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 10:20:40 AM1/10/03
to
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<vV6T9.1338$BR6.41...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...

> On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:00:04 GMT, steve miller
> <che...@starswarmnews.com> wrote:
>
> >On 8 Jan 2003 18:18:08 GMT, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
> >>not just Mike.)
> >>- Tony
> >
> >Welll ... I'm not so sure that Anne McCaffrey should be discounted, if
> >one wants to talk about influence on the field;
>
> I can only reiterate that I disagree.

If "The Quantum Rose" can win a Nebula then McCaffrey is a perfectly
conceivable Grand Master!

> > but certainly Robert
> >Silverberg has got to be near the top of the list, and I 'd guess
> >Harlan Ellison would have a shot. I don't think longevity by itself
> >should be the crowning criteria (as some suggest); I could see
> >reasonable argument made for Russ, or Delany.
>

> If people are really worried about "liberal bias" in selection of
> Grand Masters, the obvious choice is Gene Wolfe. Other than he, the
> only serious potential GM who probably isn't somewhat to the left
> might be Silverberg (I don't know much about his politics, actually).
> Or Niven, I suppose, but I don't think he sustained excellence for
> long enough to be a GM.

Looking at the candidates, I submit that Silverberg and Ellison are
the two obvious next candidates, and that Ellison probably has the
edge due to being a year older.

Nicholas

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 12:20:30 PM1/10/03
to
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:26:35 -0700, Brandon Ray <pub...@avalon.net>
wrote:

>It's a true shame that the people you mention (along with some others) don't
>qualify. Does anyone know why GM's have to be still living?

So they can enjoy receiving the award.

In at least one case, in fact, a still-living candidate was rejected
because she was no longer capable of understanding or appreciating
what was happening.

This isn't a Hall of Fame. The idea is for the _recipient_ to have
the pleasure of knowing he or she is being honored by his or her
peers, his or her mastery of the field acknowledged.

Also, since it's limited to one a year (formerly six per decade), in
order to keep its prestige up, it seems a bit tacky to pass over the
living in favor of the dead -- "We're sorry, Mr. van Vogt, but we
really thought it was time to add H.G. Wells to the list, so you'll
just have to hang on another year..."

--

The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 11/18/02
My latest novel is ITHANALIN'S RESTORATION, published by Tor.

Randy Money

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 1:05:22 PM1/10/03
to
Jon Meltzer wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:00:04 GMT, steve miller
> <che...@starswarmnews.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 8 Jan 2003 18:18:08 GMT, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
>>>not just Mike.)
>>>- Tony
>>
>>Welll ... I'm not so sure that Anne McCaffrey should be discounted, if
>>one wants to talk about influence on the field; but certainly Robert

>>Silverberg has got to be near the top of the list, and I 'd guess
>>Harlan Ellison would have a shot. I don't think longevity by itself
>>should be the crowning criteria (as some suggest); I could see
>>reasonable argument made for Russ, or Delany. I also suggest a
>>longshot -- Peter Beagle.
>
>
> A _very_ long shot. Not a large body of work.

No, but pretty good quality across that body. Interesting thought, Steve.

Randy M.

A.C.

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 5:25:06 PM1/10/03
to
na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in message news:<avhq10$n0k$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...

> Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
> not just Mike.)

You know, I was just thinking, what are the qualifications necessary?
I had assumed you had to be American, then roused myself out of my
stupor to notice the brits. That being said, how about Stanislaw Lem?

And what about Kurt Vonnegut? Or would his views on the SF field
preclude him from accepting it?

Karl M Syring

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 5:59:12 PM1/10/03
to
A.C. wrote on 10 Jan 2003 14:25:06 -0800:
> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in message news:<avhq10$n0k$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>
>> Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
>> not just Mike.)
>
> You know, I was just thinking, what are the qualifications necessary?
> I had assumed you had to be American, then roused myself out of my
> stupor to notice the brits. That being said, how about Stanislaw Lem?

Given old animosities, I would exclude Lem.

Karl M. Syring

Mike Schilling

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 6:21:08 PM1/10/03
to

"A.C." <nomadi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4bef640.03011...@posting.google.com...

> na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote in message
news:<avhq10$n0k$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>
> > Sooooo.....who could/should be the next one? (Directed to everybody,
> > not just Mike.)
>
> You know, I was just thinking, what are the qualifications necessary?
> I had assumed you had to be American, then roused myself out of my
> stupor to notice the brits. That being said, how about Stanislaw Lem?
>
> And what about Kurt Vonnegut? Or would his views on the SF field
> preclude him from accepting it?

Does he deserve it? His first six novels (through _Slaughterhouse Five_)
were brilliant, but he's done little or nothing worthwhile since.


Tyson Patterson

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 7:33:56 PM1/10/03