"Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

matociquala · Post by **matociquala** » September 18, 2004, 03:20:43 PM

Again, these forums are exactly for that. I've roasted and been roasted.

Nate

"Roasting," as you put it, is, to my mind, and inappropriate and unhelpful review technique. It's not helpful to a story, or a writer, to shred, stomp, or disembowel. What *is* helpful is a thoughtful critique, which addresses strengths and weaknesses. And it's only as helpful as the writer can make it. Even a bad critique can have some nuggets of gold in it, if the writer can read through to them. I normally don't review outside of a workshop setting, because I certainly don't wish to set myself up as an authority or as the last word on anything, and in a workshop setting, there are formalized ground rules. If you'd like, I'd be happy to do a thorough critique of one of your August stories, and post it in this forum. However, I'm reasonably certain, given what seems to me to be an aggressively defensive attitude on your part, that if I say anything that isn't glowing praise, you'll accuse me of flaming or, as Kat said above, attempting to score points. (Nevermind that if I need to score points in a semiprozine lettercol, I *seriously* need to get a life.) So sure, I'll crit one story (all I have time for) and I'll crit it publicly, using the same techniques I would to critique a friend. And in return, you agree to accept that I'm making the critique in good faith, and not make any unreasonable charges about my motivations in doing so, or escalate the critique into a flame war. Please note that there's no guarantee that a critique from me will make any story salable, and I do not rewrite stories or, in particular, do line edits. I will comment on story, structure, technique, workmanship, narrative, and so forth. I will do so thoughtfully and to the best of my ability. And you will agree not to take it as a personal assault or attack. Are you in or are you out? --EBear

Cristalia · Post by **Cristalia** » September 18, 2004, 04:33:43 PM

Well, wow. Hello, folks. Followed a link here from a friend, and was quite surprised at the discussion. Just to clarify, I don't know Simon that well either. I've seen messages by him on other boards (and I'm pretty sure I've *ahem* rejected some of his fiction as well). I'm a little flattered that he mentioned my name in the company of some of the others on that list, who are writers I like and respect. If anyone, as a writer, really does want to clarify the editor-writer relationship and/or dynamic, I do have a suggestion that may help: Do some editing. Seriously. I've been a writer for three years and an editor for an online semipro market for one and a half. I have to say, it's an education. It's much easier to understand why your own stories might have been rejected when you're rejecting other people's work for the same reasons. Like Kat said, it's hard to find the stuff you want to put down money for. And it gets more understandable, as you go, why someone else may not want to put down (more) money for your own. Editors don't have some sort of agenda against new writers, or Against You Especially. Frankly, we're not really all that cool for someone to discriminate against us. *g* If you can't do some editing, do some critiquing. I'd like to second Elizabeth's endorsement of Critters and the Online Writing Workshops: both are great places to learn and hone one's craft, and I say that from experience. And my second suggestion: Part of being a writer, especially in our genre where everyone seemingly knows everyone else, is professionalism. Every story is judged on its own merits, but there is a degree where you're only as worthwhile as your own good name. The "editors all against us" attitude isn't exactly a new one -- I've seen variations of this argument before in many places in the last few years -- and it never really attains the participants any credibility, credit for intelligence or tact, etc. It does not make people look like professional adults. Editors are not monolithic entities: they're people. They will get annoyed at things that can be perceived as whining, discrediting their own reputations (re: the commitment to publishing new writers), and arguing the same thing fifteen times over. I'm a little glad this thread didn't appear on the Nightshade boards, where Ellen Datlow and Gordon Van Gelder often post, and are both rather (understandably) quick to respond to people maligning their own reputations. Bear in mind that it's not Ellen or GVG who look bad at the end of these debacles: they have solid reputations in this industry for a reason, after all, and conduct themselves with tact. They're part of the community, and they're part of the community for a reason. Put bluntly, appearing unprofessional in front of those who sign your cheques, will read your fiction, buy your novels off the shelf, attend your signings and readings, and generally pay your way in life is not always good policy, right? :) So...remember when your career is your good name, be wary of the image you project. Especially online. The internet is forever. ;) Thanks, Leah Bobet (neo-pro)

cpolk · Post by **cpolk** » September 19, 2004, 04:35:26 AM

yeah. found this from a link from another websource. walked in, and saw the fracas. interesting, but not original - i've seen this argument before. i will say that anyone who chooses not to submit to the big pro markets is ALLOWED TO DO THAT. dammit, it's your writing and your choice where you attempt to have it published. if you don't want the stress that comes of sitting on tenterhooks hoping that you don't get your own envelope back from F&SF, you're allowed to do that, absolutely and without a doubt. If you find that you are absolutely satisfied with and pleased by your publication in semi-pro magazines, then whoo hoo for you. What i question is the idea that publishing in pro paying magazines is impossible or the next darn thing to it. because it's not impossible. you just have to be really, really good. actually, you have to be blow the top of your head clean off great. and that's a lot of stress. it's better not to accept it. you'll keep more hair that way.

September 19, 2004, 04:10:31 PM

... I'm not writing this out of anger. I'm just tired of this playing out pointlessly, and I'd really like to see the discussions turn to things more productive. Disagreements are good; debate is healthy; this...this is codependence.

--Jeff Williams

As I said elsewhere, the amount of effort and wordage expended here was probably equivalent to a couple of short stories or a bunch of critiques of stories, either of which would be more constructive than the "you're a hypocrite!" "no, YOU'RE a hypocrite!" "Snob!" "Peasant!" exchange ... To quote (probably) a Valley Girl, somewhere, sometime, this is like, so matchure! Robert M.

September 19, 2004, 06:34:49 PM

... and i also want to thank Dan and Jeff for providing objective observations regarding both the thread and our collective concerns as relating to the writing business. neither "faction" could ever prove their point beyond a doubt, while unfortunately one did go about this as if their angle was absolute truth.

Lee

I dunno, Lee. Seemed to me that both sides were proceeding from a "I'm right, you just are too (fill in unflattering term) to understand my point" position. Move along, people, nothing to see here. Robert M.

Post by **kailhofer** » September 19, 2004, 07:43:44 PM

Ms. Bear, I apologize. Simon's words and mine are like oil and water--we don't mix well. Some of the disdain meant for him and his position on this argument translated unfairly to you and Ms. Allen, to whom I also offer an olive branch. It was in no way fair comment, and I shall undertake never to "speak" to you or her in such a way again.

I normally don't review outside of a workshop setting, because I certainly don't wish to set myself up as an authority or as the last word on anything, and in a workshop setting, there are formalized ground rules.
If you'd like, I'd be happy to do a thorough critique of one of your August stories, and post it in this forum. However, I'm reasonably certain, given what seems to me to be an aggressively defensive attitude on your part, that if I say anything that isn't glowing praise, you'll accuse me of flaming or, as Kat said above, attempting to score points. (Nevermind that if I need to score points in a semiprozine lettercol, I *seriously* need to get a life.)

So sure, I'll crit one story (all I have time for) and I'll crit it publicly, using the same techniques I would to critique a friend. And in return, you agree to accept that I'm making the critique in good faith, and not make any unreasonable charges about my motivations in doing so, or escalate the critique into a flame war.

Please note that there's no guarantee that a critique from me will make any story salable, and I do not rewrite stories or, in particular, do line edits. I will comment on story, structure, technique, workmanship, narrative, and so forth. I will do so thoughtfully and to the best of my ability.

And you will agree not to take it as a personal assault or attack.

Are you in or are you out?

--EBear

While I would not have taken it as a personal attack, I understand your thinking so. I, or any of the "usual suspects" here (as we're often referred to) would be very happy to have your, or anyone else's opinion. (Believe it or not, I've previously asked Simon to review stories here.) "Roasting" in this case was just as Donald indicated. Aphelion is normally filled with levity and community, and we poke friendly jabs at each other all the time. The Aphelion logo in the upper left of this page will take you to the current issue. The Back issues button will take you to August. Here in the lettercolumn there are different folders for each month's issue. Inside that are folders for different stories wherein reviews are posted and topics discussed. When away from the argument here, I think you'll find Aphelion is very much like a continuous writer's workshop. If you have time, you may wish to read through the other reviews to see if a point has already been raised. If you have a slight bit more time, you might check out some of the other threads. The writers behind them would be thrilled to have input from someone new. Nate

Hedgewise · Post by **Hedgewise** » September 19, 2004, 07:50:41 PM

"If you'll check the thread, I think you'll find the reality is more like this: kailhofer neoadorable dsullivan hedgewise simonowens Four people arguing against and one arguing for the editors does not constitute "all the accusations." Excuse me... Unless you're counting Simon as arguing against, then you're misrepresenting my posts rather alarmingly if I'm supposed to be 'arguing against the editors' with Nate, Lee and Donald. Actually if you include Bear, Leah, and CPolk... then you have one neo-pro novelist, two neo-pro short story writers, myself and Simon versus... three locals. Except, of course, the majority of us don't consider it to be arguing against these three individuals but supplying a different viewpoint, which is in our experience, rather than opinion, a more accurate one. "Saying something is something because YOU say it is isn't a valid argumentative style. " Umm actually that's saying something said by the editors of pro markets... often, and at length. To quote a very recent example (Sat 18th Sept) on the Nightshade books message boards -- SB -- obviously SciFiction would be wonderfull to get published in, but I recognize considering the talent published there, that as a begining writer, and a relatively young guy, it's out of my league right now EDatlow -- don't assume I wouldn't publish you just because you're a beginning writer. I've published two first stories so far this year. "Go out, research, and find the evidence. Provide the sources for your evidence. If the other side can't provide effective counterarguments, then you win. Period." ::air punches:: Actually it's a cheap victory -- the reason no one thought to provide other evidence is that it's so plentiful and obvious -- and folks, a list of new neo-pro writers and the open testimony of one didn't convince, what proof would you accept? Signed authenticated letters from the editors concerned -- nah, they lie don't they. Frankly guys... you're on the internet, this information is freely available. There are writer communities out there sharing not just this stuff but market news and tips. Information about their personal quest to write better. Warnings about scams and scammers and things that break a writer's heart. Places where the inexperienced are welcome, and the education is freely offered. But this isn't stuff you should expect to have brought to you. You should be seeking it out for yourselves. No one brings college to you -- you go to college. It seems as though what's was being said about non-paying markets, on the Nightshade board, is actually true. That they tend not to encourage writers to go on to pro-success, but to draw closer to the fire and complain that it's cold outside. And no, I don't mean this as an attack on what you have here. The fire doesn't need to burn out while you turn round and take a peek at the possibilities which lie beyond that warm, comfy circle. Long as you feed it that fire will burn. "I'm not writing this out of anger. I'm just tired of this playing out pointlessly, and I'd really like to see the discussions turn to things more productive. Disagreements are good; debate is healthy; this...this is codependence." No... it isn't co-dependence in any way. Like me, everyone else who dropped by is busy somewhere else. They're semi-prozine editors, neo-pro writers, and they are known in the wider writer communities. They have real writer lives. Nate turned down the offer of a story critique -- and I can assure you that it would have been a fair one -- from someone with a three book contract with Bantam Spectra (her first two novels coming out in Jan and Jun/Jul of 2005). She's a SFWA member, published in several pro short story markets -- including Scifiction and F&SF -- and currently working as an editor for Ideomancer. Of course... none of that proves she knows anything about the business. Leah... pro short story sales, currently an editor at Ideomancer. CPolk... yup... you guessed it. These people do not need you -- they've said their piece, tried to correct a misapprehension, and gone on with their lives... I'm only posting the rest of this because Jeff misrepresented which side of the 'editors are mean liers' debate I'm on. And guys... I don't sub short stories much, I don't need to keep on any magazine editor's good side. But someone who is comfy by the fire in the valley, probably shouldn't tell someone who's standing on top of a hill what they can see on the other side. And no one objective could possibly take the word of the guy by the fire over that of the guy on the hilltop. If they did -- well telling them what the guy on the mountain sees wouldn't help much, would it? They believe the guy staring into the fire knows better. You can't shake blind faith and superstition with facts. Kat Allen

Hedgewise · Post by **Hedgewise** » September 19, 2004, 08:47:32 PM

"Ms. Bear, I apologize. Simon's words and mine are like oil and water--we don't mix well. Some of the disdain meant for him and his position on this argument translated unfairly to you and Ms. Allen, to whom I also offer an olive branch. It was in no way fair comment, and I shall undertake never to "speak" to you or her in such a way again." It seems we cross-posted. Thank you. I think human beings tend to be more comfortable seeing things as binary classifications -- so anyone saying things similar to the opinions of another poster is lumped in as 'friend of them' rather than 'new person'. It probably doesn't help that people were then arriving on their own, but following links from the same places. I found my way round, thanks :) It's different, but interesting. As I said, I'd already read one of your stories, and a few others in the more recent issues. One thing I would bring up in regard to Aphelion being like a workshop, though, is that -- unlike the two workshops recommended -- you've already published your story before getting critique. Which means that even if it can be made into a story that could have achieved pay publication, its first rights are pretty much blown. In general terms... and not wishing to offend those invested in Aphelion -- getting critique on a story at a workshop, and *then* deciding whether to send it to paying markets first or publish it directly with Aphelion, could be something those interested in pay publication might want to consider. I've also found that one can learn a great deal to improve ones own writing -- and discover why some stories will be almost instantly rejected by pro editors -- by being exposed to a wider range of stories and authors than I suspect is the norm on Aphelion. It can also help to get opinions from a slightly wider range of reviewers. (Workshops whose membership is in the hundreds can provide that range). Frankly, I don't think it's a coincidence that a bunch of the neo-pros being talked about are, or have been, members of one of these workshops. Not all of them, no, but enough that it feels statistically significant. And again, I'm not saying anyone should abandon Aphelion, but if someone is seriously trying to be published for money, they need to be able to learn and get comment without losing any rights. I don't think any non-pay editors would argue against getting stories that had already been improved by critique -- it's easier to let other people spot the typos, continuity errors, etc and more fun to publish stories that have missed pay markets by a whisper. "If you have time, you may wish to read through the other reviews to see if a point has already been raised." BTW One of my workshop tips is to never read the other reviews before writing your own -- you end up looking out for the problems other people have seen, rather than finding out if you would have noticed on your own. And if the author gets told something twice? well then they know that more than one person is having a problem with a particular part of their story :) Kat Allen

matociquala · Post by **matociquala** » September 19, 2004, 11:31:04 PM

On the whole, we HOPE to lose our writers to the pay markets. :)

--Jeff "Thirty-one Rejections and Counting" Williams :)

The semipro curse, alas. And the pro markets lose them to the novel publishers. Which is why there is a slight but steady upward draft. *g* The trick is getting your damned wings in the right place to catch it. I want to thank Nate, by the way, for his graciousness in extending a public apology, and his courage in offering his work for comment. I'm not sure a retraction on that scale was really warranted by his behavior, but it takes a big man to offer an olive branch quite so definitely. --EBear

stillnotbored · September 19, 2004, 11:54:02 PM

I don't know how to say this without causing ill-will, but to me this smacks of a veiled threat. I don't know you personally. I can't fathom what pull you have in the publishing industry. I will say that not having any insight into what's being discussed on those "other" boards is not fair to the people disagreeing with you. You're leveraging the public nature of these boards without providing the same courtesy back. If these are indeed editors of the industry, the result may be that some of these writers get black-listed. I say may, because I'm totally in the dark on these "pissed" off editors. Here's the upshot: I will be hesitant to reply to anything you post for fear that it may be used against me. I don't think that's what you intended, but I certainly will be wary. I would be foolish to do otherwise as an aspiring writer. :-(

As for the "outside" editors viewing this thread, I sincerely hope you give these writers their due based on merit alone and disregard this thread as emotionally driven. I have heard of certain Fantasy writers that have gotten blacklisted due solely on personal issues.

I've been reading this thread for the last couple of days and keeping my mouth shut. I did want to address this comment. I don't know Simon. Not at all. I do know many of the first time authors he listed who made sales to pro markets. In the interest of full disclosure, I should also say that about six weeks ago I became an associate editor for a respected online zine. I also sold my first short story this year to a pro paying market that is not yet SFWA qualified. So I've seen things from both sides of the 'desk'. I found this discussion through LJ links. Since that time, I have seen it linked on three other LJ's. All those LJ's are owned by writers and editors. One of them is a professional editor. This thread has also been a hot topic in the writer's chat rooms I frequent. There are two points to this post. First, there was no threat I could see in Simon's post. He simply stated the truth. The SFF community is like a small town. Word spreads and it spreads quickly. Post a link on a writer's LJ and with in a few days, the whole interconnected writer's LJ group will know. This includes many professional authors and editors. They talk to other editors and writers. The second point is the reaction out in the greater writing world to this thread and some of the opinons stated about how unfair the process is. The editors I know aren't pissed off. I'd say their reaction is akin to mine-- stunned and, for some, slightly amused. The writers I know who are working as hard as they can to climb out of the slush pile are just as stunned. While we all agree the process is like an endurance race, I don't think any of the people I know have ever seen it as unfair. One of the things that has always impressed me about the SFF world is how open it is to new writers. The old pros go out of their way to help new comers. Editors don't hold themselves aloof from writers, published or unpublished. Go to any SFF con and watch what happens. You'll see exactly what I mean. All editors, myself included, really root for the writer. We want you to grow, improve and make that big sale. And think about it. Without new writers, editors would be out of a job. Old writer's don't live forever. Jaime Voss

cpolk · Post by **cpolk** » September 21, 2004, 12:34:20 AM

as for the thread as a whole, the point wasn't editors per se at all, although many kept making it out to be for controversy's sake. the point was frustration and a desire to see more venues and means for living off the written word.

hi lee. Please don't expect to live off the written word. you'll die. of starvation and homelessness. very few writers make enough money to live off the written word. those that can are generally getting a hell of a lot of money, and the rest live in garrets.

WhiteLion · Post by **WhiteLion** » September 21, 2004, 07:35:52 AM

>> But the SFFWA used their influence to prevent van >> Vogt from being nominated for any prestigious >> awards, such as the Hugo or Nebula. Er, just how could SFWA influence Hugo voting? Hugos are voted by paying members of Worldcon, which is most definitely not connected with SFWA. And while the Nebulas are run by SFWA, SFWA is not a monolithic entity. Individual members recommend works for the award. Works that receive enough recommendations are voted on by the entire membership in two rounds of voting. There are political factions, sure, but there's nothing approaching a "corporate" action. If enough members wanted to recommend/vote for van Vogt's works, they could. As for Damon Knight writing "cruel" reviews....well, that's part of the business. You write. You publish. You get reviews, good or bad or sometimes both at once. White Lion

WhiteLion · Post by **WhiteLion** » September 21, 2004, 01:38:55 PM

>> I perceive the SFFWA as a pretty powerful organization >> in the field of SF... Not as powerful as some writers wish. If it were, there might be better contracts for all of us. :) > and I don't find it strange that they might have used > their influence to keep a particular writer from being > nominated. Who is this mysterious "they"? I'm a member of SFWA and it strikes me as being pretty individualistic. There are political factions, but I can say that no one has ever tried to "influence" me about recco's or votes. > But you’re telling me that SFFWA has no > influence in the awards, and I’ll accept that. No influence with the Hugos at all. SFWA does run the Nebulas, but recommendations and voting are all individual actions. It's not a perfect system, alas. Every year there's a general bemoaning that some worthy book or story didn't make the ballot. >> I do find it a little odd that he did not receive a >> single award (except for some Canadian awards) >> during his career. It's happened to more than one well-known writer. No conspiracy or group-action involved, just the bad luck of folks not atttending Worldcon and voting (for the Hugos) or a particular work not garnering enough recco's to make the preliminary Nebula ballot. But going back a few posts. You seem to be saying that SFWA, in the person of Damon Knight, was responsible for van Vogt's failed career. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Couple of points. Awards are nice, but while they might help to boost the next advance, they aren't a career breaker. I know several established pros who never received a Nebula or a Hugo and they're doing just fine. Even aside from the awards, SFWA doesn't have enough influence with publishers to make or break anyone's career. As for reviews -- editors and publishers buy stories and books based on how good they are. Bad reviews might give them pause, but if the author is selling well enough, the publishers don't care. --WL

WhiteLion · Post by **WhiteLion** » September 21, 2004, 04:19:56 PM

>> Incidentally, I’ve always thought it was SFFWA >> (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America), >> but I see that you call it SFWA. Has it changed, >> or have I been wrong all this time? You have the full name correct, but the acronym is usually listed as SFWA. (Pronounced SIF-WAH) I've heard various arguments about why the inconsistency -- the most common being that the second F sounds unwieldy. >> However, I don’t think we can call it a failed career. Absolutely not. I was summarizing too quickly and typed "failed" when your term "damaged" is a much better one. Although on second thought, I'm not sure you could call his career damaged. Steady numerous sales sounds like a *successful* career to me. :) --WL

September 21, 2004, 04:26:48 PM

As for the benefits of winning awards, consider some of the writers who have left us prematurely -- sometimes by suicide. I seem to recall that both John Brunner and Roger Zelazny (multi-award winners, both of them) died by their own hands. Or does this sort of thing prove not that winning awards can be bad for your health, but that great works often spring from emotionally fragile people (prone to depression, and thus suicide)? (From "Is Science Fiction Dead?" to "Is there a connection between winning awards and suicide?" Well, it's only 5 or 6 weeks 'til Hallowe'en, after all.) Robert M.

matociquala · Post by **matociquala** » September 22, 2004, 01:02:31 AM

To the best of my knowledge, Roger Zelazny did in fact die of natural causes (and I know a couple of friends of his fairly well, and SF isn't exactly a big field; secrets tend not to stay secret for very long around here) and John Brunner did in fact pass away of a heart attack in Glasgow--and I know people who were at that convention. There are plenty of writers who, unfortunately, felt the need to take their own lives (as in SF, famously, the great H. Beam Piper and the equally great Alice Sheldon, aka James Tiptree, Jr., aka Raccoona Sheldon). I don't think it's necessary to add to the toll. A.E. van Vogt isn't exactly what I would call an unknown or uncelebrated writer, FWIW. And SFWA politics are notoriously violent, but that hasn't kept a lot of writers who have been at odds very noisily with various factions of SFWA membership (most recently Rob Sawyer) from walking home with the odd Hugo, Nebula, or what have you. It also doesn't keep a lot of very successful writers from not bothering to joing SFWA, because its power is extremely limited (Mike Resnick is notorious for his lambasting of the organization, and it doesn't exactly keep him out of the awards, either). And the second F in SFWA was added later, and is silent. *g* -eBear (also a SFWA member, which doesn't even get me health insurance these days, but will get me a cup of coffee at a convention, if I can find the SFWA suite.)

WhiteLion · Post by **WhiteLion** » September 22, 2004, 07:08:26 AM

>> And the second F in SFWA was added later, and >> is silent. And invisible. *g* If you check the cover of your SFWA directory, you'll see the name writ with "Fiction and Fantasy" but the acronym with just a single F. --WL

Aphelion

"Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (ar

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (ar

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)

Re: "Is Science Fiction Dead?" (article)