the future of the field of the Future

[sergebroom]

I’m done with the accumulated issues of the SFWA Bulletin. My wife automatically receives it because she’s a member, but it is available to non-members and is sold in newsstands. Luckily, as it is a bi-monthly, it didn’t take as much time to go thru. That being said, I very much enjoy the mag’s Malzberg/Resnick Dialogues, where they argue with each other about various aspects of the F/SF field.

Let me amend that.
I normally enjoy their Dialogues.
January 2009’s? Not so much.

It began with their comparing DragonCon, with its attendance of 35,000 people, to the worldcon’s ever-decreasing numbers that are now one tenth of that, if that much. They also talked about the worldcon’s graying attendance. That’s not what bothered me. In fact, I’ve heard from another pro that, while written SF is but a small aspect of DragonCon, the writing-related panels usually are packed. The audience – a young audience - wants to learn and is surprised when it discovers that our pros really are quite approachable. That they’re surprised doesn’t surprise me. When my wife and I resumed attending worldcons, some writers would make a face when she’d explain that she writes romance novels with a strong fantasy element. (Heck, she’s been a fan of F/SF since she was a kid.) That attitude has changed since then, but similar experiences may have given the kids who now go to DragonCon the idea that they’re not welcome. Call me naïve. (“You’re so naïve, Serge.”) I heard that. Anyway, call me naïve (“You’re so n…”), but, when we’ve been ostracized for what gives us so much pleasure, shouldn’t we be kinder to others?

(“So, what did bug you with that column?”)
I’m getting to it.

At some point, Malzberg says that one reason why written-SF cons see their attendance evaporate goes like this.

Only a relatively small amount of readers have the patience and sophistication, the sheer knowledge to truly appreciate this material. So-called cutting-edge science fiction has become increasingly arcane and self-referential in the last twenty years, much of it will make absolutely no sense to most of the audience. You’re not going to be able to sell Stephen Baxter or Paul Macauley, Greg Egan and Neal Stephenson to the attendees of ComicCon or DragonCon.

This is Barry Malzberg saying that, a person not known for writing run-of-the-mill SF. I never could get into his stuff, but that’s irrelevant. He may be right, and some of our SF may be incomprehensible to newcomers to the field – I’ve been reading SF for as long as I’ve known how to read – and even before I knew how to read. I went thru that Dialogue twice and I’m still not sure what Malzeberg and Resnick propose. Should our writers basically stop writing stories that build on the field’s traditions? Should they cook up the same stories again and again, never challenging the readers?

Then Resnick mentions some writers who early on figured out that DragonCon’s audience is where the future is. One of them, whom I shall not name, is one of the most pedestrian writers I’ve ever come across, and I’ve felt that way with each and every piece of fiction of his I’ve tried to read. Resnick does say the following.

I’m not totally convinced that we can’t reach a mass audience with quality books. Certainly Bradbury, McCaffrey, Asimov, Heinlein, Gaiman, Simmons, and a number of others have managed, and they can’t all be writing yard goods. As for the cutting edge, I’ve never been convinced of its commercial value, and only occasionally of its artistic value.

This is the person who recently wrote stories about robots that Asimov could have done in the 1940s. I'm not sure if that's the road he suggested we should travel on when he said that the field must adapt or die.

Comments

[readinggeek451]

What bothers me most about that quote from Malzberg is the sneering at DragonCon and ComicCon attendees. In fact, his attitude there is exactly the same condescension that sf writers and fans have long (and justly) complained about literary mavens showing toward sf. Way to join--to become--the enemy, Malzberg.

Also, many "attendees of ComicCon or DragonCon" attend other, more traditional sf cons as well.

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

Actually, the full article shows him doing quite the opposite of a sneer at DragonCon. I'm quite happy with that. What surprised me is his suggestion that SF should become more accessible. That being said, I've never been to a DragonCon simply because I don't think I'd enjoy an event with that many people in it. But yes, some of us do act with condescension and that's not right.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

It can be scary, but you can also just stick to one or two tracks, which makes it more manageable.

[readinggeek451]

the full article shows him doing quite the opposite of a sneer at DragonCon

I'm glad to hear it. I probably reacted a little more negatively to that quote because the one time I saw Malzberg in person, he pitched a fit, threw his weight around, and hijacked the panel he was on (I left; I was interested in the panel topic advertised, not the semi-related thing that he insisted it *should* have been). So I'm pre-disposed to regard him as a bit of a jerk.

DragonCon can be kind of overwhelming, but no more so (for me) than a Worldcon. My main objection is that it really isn't a very good fit for my interests--too much emphasis on comics, gaming, and media. There are literary tracks, but they're kind of lost in the shuffle. And not much represented in the Dealers Room (which was way too crowded). That said, I might well go back some year, but mainly because a lot of my friends go and I can combine it with a visit to my folks. (Atlanta is my hometown.)

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

My own experience of Malzberg was at my first worldcon, Boston's in 1980. I was waiting in line to get a novel autographed and M walked by, asked who the line was for. He walked away less than impressed by this line being for something by George Takei & Robert Asprin.

As the greater emphasis being on comics at D*C... I love comics, but I've become more selective as I get into the old-fart era of life. So, a con focussing on comics wouldn't appeal to me. Besides, what makes a con a success for me are the people I meet and the bigger the con, the less likely I am to meet people.

On the other hand, even though the literature is a minor component, it IS sought by the people who attend. Every little bit helps keep the field alive.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

As someone who goes to Dragon*Con (well, it is only 17 miles from where I live), and who has (alas not on this computer) a photograph somewhere with Mike Resnick at Dragon*Con, I do have something to say here.

There is a LitTrack at D*C for those of us who read SF/F. Some of the panels are heavily attended. Certainly, there are a lot of people who read MilSF and who like the kind of stuff that John Ringo churns out, or the more literate stuff that David Drake writes, or David Weber. But there are as many who turn out to discuss Neil Gaiman (in all of his incarnations). I've also been able to meet Harry Turtledove (long a dream of mine, the fanboy squee went to 12), and Eric Flint. Dragon*Con is an immense thing, and it can scare people. But it is fannish, of the fen. Malzberg is, I think full of it.

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

Some of the panels are heavily attended

That's what the pro I mentionned above told me, and also that the people who attend are VERY interested. So there is hope for our genre. I just didn't understand what Resnick meant. Maybe one day I'll meet him and ask.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

He's a charming old pro. I hope you do get to meet him.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

It, and Comicon, are for-profit cons, though, and I think that's the primary difference between them and most SFF cons. When the work is done by volunteers, and there are memberships instead of tickets, you tend to stick to the areas that are most important to you.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

Most of the work at D*C is done by volunteers. Of whom I am one.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

Yes, but not all, and that does make a difference.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

I suppose it does. My experience of OmegaCon, last year in Birmingham, was fascinating. I gather the entrepreneur who set up the con (in more senses than one) is now in durance vile.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

No, I hadn't heard of the Birmingham Omegacon and their problems. This doesn't look like he wanted to pull a con. This looks like he decided to emulate Dragon*con and didn't have enough initial funding. It's clearly a non-fannish con -- he's listed as President and they're paying tbe actor guests for their presence -- like Dragon*con and Comicon.

I can't find anything that shows he was sued, went to court, or is in prison. Do you have references for that?

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

I don't. Sorry. I was relying on what someone told me. I probably should not have.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Given that Malzburg routinely gets my "waste of ink" award for the stories he sells to anthologies, I find his comment both highly ironic and redolent of an Ann Rice-level meltdown.

An awful lot of the lit-snob hate for Dragon*Con is sour grapes, pure and simple. D*C figured out early on that people who like ONE kind of SF/fantasy frequently like SEVERAL kinds, and that the key to success was to appeal to that crossover market by giving them programming covering ALL their interests...

... and by being affordable. A 4-day membership to this year's D*C is $100 at the door, and was cheaper if you bought it earlier. At-the-door membership to this year's Worldcon is $225, and the rate right now for Reno, for someone who neither pre-supported nor voted, is already $140 and will probably be double that at the door. Bluntly, the ROI is a lot better for D*C than it is for Worldcon, unless you're the sort of person who has a lot of discretionary income and very little interest in anything BUT lit-SF.

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

people who like ONE kind of SF/fantasy frequently like SEVERAL kinds

Heck, I discovered SF thru comics then TV & movies then books. I won't judge an SF movie by the same criteria as I would a novel by Stephen Baxter, but that's not putting one down while elevating the other. One can do certain things that the other can't.

As for Malzberg, like I said to readinggeek above, he wasn't putting D*C down. I just couldn't say for sure what this specific Dialogue's recommendation was.

The cost... Yes, that is definitely a factor. No wonder there are so few kids attending a worldcon.

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

That being said, I don't want to sound unappreciative of worldcons or even smaller cons. Their organizers spend a lot of time and energy to make those large-scale parties happen and, without them, my life would have gone down a different, and far less happy, route.

[alias_sqbr]

My brother is a 23 year old who reads very little and isn't even fannish enough to go to the local equivalent of Dragon Con, and he LOVED the Greg Egan I lent him, and just went out to buy himself some more (I'm not saying Greg Egan is totally accessible, but I think it has more to do with how familiar you are with science, not sf tropes). I think someone like Charles Stross would probably be harder to get into if you hadn't read a lot of sf previously, but I guess he doesn't fit into the "old school hard sf, new school populist cheese" dichotomy they've set up.

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

I think Malzberg & Resnick overestimate how difficult some modern SF is to get into. Like I said in my original post, I've been with SF for a long time so I can't tell for sure. But. When I started reading 'real' SF, one of the first things I went thru was a novel by van Vogt, which wasn't exactly for novices to the field.

That being said, congratulations with the corruption of your bro. With Egan, no less. Speaking of Stross, has your brother tried his spy/Lovecraft stories?

[alias_sqbr]

I don't think Stross would be my brother's cup of tea. I'm thinking Octavia Butler or maybe Greg Bear, their ideas are pretty crackling and are often more biological (which is his area)

Also the Laundry novels annoyed me by using a lot of computational mathematics ideas to sound cool without really doing much with them.

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

As for myself, I thought it was wise of Stross's Laundry stories to handle maths the way they did. Some things seem neat until we start taking a close look.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, I think what I wanted (that plot but with Greg Egan level maths) is a bit much to ask, but it's still what I wanted and I felt irrationally cheated that I didn't get it :)