the future of the field of the Future
Aug. 25th, 2009 09:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sergebroomI’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.
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.
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.
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.
