@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/16/92 -- Vol. 11, No. 16
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are on Wednesdays at noon.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
10/28 HO: Book Swap (HO 4N-509)
11/18 HO: DOOMSDAY BOOK by Connie Willis (Plagues) (HO 4N-509)
12/09 HO: A FIRE ON THE DEEP by Vernor Vinge (HO 4N-509)
_D_A_T_E _E_X_T_E_R_N_A_L _M_E_E_T_I_N_G_S/_C_O_N_V_E_N_T_I_O_N_S/_E_T_C.
10/17 NJSFS: New Jersey Science Fiction Society: TBA
(phone 201-432-5965 for details) (Saturday)
11/21 SFABC: Science Fiction Association of Bergen County: TBA
(phone 201-933-2724 for details) (Saturday)
HO Chair: John Jetzt HO 1E-525 908-834-1563 hocpb!jetzt
LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell HO 1D-505A 908-834-1267 hocpb!jrrt
MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzy!leeper
HO Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 908-949-7076 homxc!11366ns
LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen LZ 3L-312 908-576-3346 mtfme!lfl
MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzy!leeper
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 908-957-2070 mtgzy!ecl
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. Last couple of articles I have been talking about what is
uncomfortable about flying. I should be fair to the airlines. A
lot of my discomfort is what I do to myself. I am one of those
people who sucks on a sore tooth. I am a sort of self-torturer. I
have a checklist to be sure systematically that I don't forget to
bring something on a trip. Then on the way to the airport Evelyn
will ask me something like, "Do you have your toothbrush?" and I
will panic. Now it doesn't matter that I know it was on my list
and that I remember packing it; I still have to double-check.
Evelyn knows I have never in my life forgotten my toothbrush; I
think she asks just to see me go into a panic frenzy and see me
dive through my luggage to double-check on the toothbrush. And it
doesn't matter how absurd the question is--it will panic me. She
could ask me, "Did you blow out the candles?" and through the whole
trip I will be white-knuckled just knowing for sure we are going to
come home to a house burned to the ground and our precious
THE MT VOID Page 2
collection of books will have all gone for tinder. There will be
nothing but ashes. I just cannot sit down and logically tell
myself, "Look, dummy, the last time you had a lit candle in the
house was on your birthday two-and-a-half years ago." No, logic
doesn't help.
Is everyone like that? If the Pope is traveling someplace like the
Dominican Republic, what happens if you ask him, "Hep, JP2, did you
remember the notes for your speech?" Will he start yelling to land
his jet so he can tear apart his luggage or does he have the
presence of mind to say to himself, "Look, dummy, you can't have
forgotten the notes. You're infallible! Remember?"
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
...mtgzy!leeper
You can't start worrying about what's going to happen.
You get crazy enough worrying about what's happening
now.
-- Lauren Bacall
MagiCon 1992
(Part 3 of 4)
Con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1992 Evelyn C. Leeper
@@@@ PPPPaaaarrrrttttyyyy
Friday, 10 PM
Brad Templeton (host)
The @ party was hosted by Brad Templeton and ClariNet
Communications. This meant there were no worries about collecting
for refreshments, finding someone to volunteer a room, etc. It was
conveniently located (being just down the hall from my room, so I
could pop out to see if Mark was back in the room yet, then pop back
for a while without a major time investment). I don't know what the
total attendance was; it seems to be at least as much as last year,
though not as crowded because of the larger room. I didn't see as
many familiar faces (names), though. ClariNet was using the room to
promote their "Library of Tomorrow" electronic library as well, so
that may account for the new (to me) folks. There was a laptop for
signing in, but someone managed to delete a lot of the names by
mistake at one point, so I don't know if anyone knows the actual
attendance. The free buttons were popular.
Panel: IIIIffff TTTThhhhiiiissss GGGGooooeeeessss OOOOnnnn............
Saturday, 11 AM
Michael F. Flynn, Jack C. Haldeman II, Frederik Pohl, Michael Swanwick
(Pat Cadigan was supposed to be the moderator but didn't make
it; I'm not sure who, if anyone, did moderate.)
When I arrived, Haldeman was talking about working with medical
technology and how it has changed a lot over the past few years.
He's currently working on a medical technology science fiction story
set in 2040 and says it is very difficult to predict what things
will be like then.
Swanwick talked about his trip to the convention. He got on an
airplane which had a telephone at every seat from which you could
call anywhere in the country; arrived at an airport with slide walks
and monorails; used a bathroom that had infrared sensors to open and
close doors, flush toilets, and turn on faucets; was given an
electronic key by the desk clerk; and was told that he could pick up
his voice mail on channel 99. And, he said, the clerk didn't
explain what was meant by this--he assumed Haldeman would
understand. To this Flynn remarked, "If this were a science fiction
story, the clerk _w_o_u_l_d have explained."
Flynn said that he represented the voice of reason speaking
against the theory that change keeps accelerating: "Between 1870 and
1920, the daily lives of citizens in cities in the Western World
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 2
changed more than any period before--or since." There was
considerable debate on this, in part because the panelists couldn't
agree on which citizens' lives they were measuring. Swanwick
pointed to the computer, modem, fax, and satellite dish as changing
his life (and many others) enormously. For example, he says that
his record between submission of a story and its acceptance is now
three-and-a-half minutes, where ten years ago it would have been
weeks. But he says he also finds himself expecting this sort of
response for everything. He recently mailed a copy of an article to
Jane Yolen and a half hour after sealing, addressing, and stamping
the envelope, he found himself wondering where her answer was--even
though he hadn't mailed the letter yet! But other panelists focused
more on the people who were not as touched by the communications
revolution.
Pohl, for one, said he was completely out of sympathy with the
computer network movement, though he didn't actually explain why.
He did talk about the World Future Society and others who _w_o_r_k at
predicting the future, and who say, "We don't know it [the future]
and we don't want to know it." Pohl also gave Pohl's Law: "The more
accurate and complete a forecast is, the less useful it is." Why?
Because if someone can predict accurately and precisely that X will
happen, then there is nothing we can do to change that. This gets
into a whole philosophical discussion of free will versus
determinism which would probably be too long and complex for this
convention report. Suffice it to say that while knowing there will
be a frost on October 10 of this year won't change that there will
be a frost, it would allow farmers to plan accordingly, so accurate
and precise predictions can have useful secondary effects.
As far as predictions go, Flynn (I believe) claimed that the
Department of Energy has run a variety of scenarios and concluded
that in all of them our society will crash and burn--the only
question is how soon. But he says the fallacy in them is that they
have programmed into their scenarios that science is a drain on
energy resources, and he and many others feel that this is not the
case. He says the problem is our belief that "progress is our most
important product," that we must be constantly increasing
production, increasing personal possessions, and so forth. He also
referred again to Dewey and Dakin (see his Friday "Alternate History
Stories" panel for details).
On the whole, Pohl is a pessimist (and says so). One reason
for this, he claims, is that we are always working on the cure for
something such that by the time we have the cure, it's too late.
Research cutbacks caused by the economic downturn have exacerbated
this as well.
The panel then responded to the question: "Can we save our
country from the automobile without bulldozing the suburbs?" Pohl
rejoined, "No, you've got the right idea--bulldoze the suburbs."
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 3
(As you can probably tell by this point, the panel tended to drift
from the actual topic to how to fix things that _w_e_r_e going on.)
Pohl pointed out that in regard to the "planned communities" that
many audience members seemed to be proposing, "The history of
planned communities is not promising." (One need only look at the
problems in Starett City in New York to see that.) On the other
hand, the recent devastation in South Florida might lead to a move
back to the cities, where homes are available, and the suburbs have
already been bulldozed by Nature. As far as true arcologies go,
though, some major issues remain: Who knows how to build them? Who
can pay for them? Who wants to live in them? The biosphere in
Arizona is a special (and very expensive) case.
Asked what current or past hot issues were dying out, the
panelists felt abortion would cease to be a major issue, because
RU-486 would become generally available (either legally or
illegally). Threats to personal freedom would also cease being a
major issue, not because they would go away, but because we would
get used to them, and the wide-spread acceptance of monitoring
cameras was given as a prime example. (Read Charles Oberndorf's
_S_h_e_l_t_e_r_e_d _L_i_v_e_s for some extrapolation and commentary on the video
monitor phenomenon.)
Somewhere along the line Haldeman told of an experiment which
involved following paranoids around to see if their paranoia was
justified, i.e., was someone really following them? The conclusion?
No. (Think about it.)
As an example of the failure of science fiction to predict
major events, I would point out that no one predicted anything like
AIDS (as far as I know--if there was such a prediction or
speculation, I'm sure someone will point it out to me). And Robert
Lucky, head of research at Bell Labs, was quoted in a recent issue
of _A_n_a_l_o_g as saying that we are terrible at predicting or directing
change: the Picturephone and something else (I forget what) were
pushed by the industry but failed, while cellular phones and
facsimile machines were big successes that were surprises to the
industry, but gained enormous grass-roots support. And of course,
Flynn cited the now-famous prediction from 1900 that based on the
then-current trends, and projecting for expected population growth,
New York would be buried under six feet of horse manure by the year
2000 (or whenever).
Panel: DDDDooooeeeessss SSSSFFFF PPPPrrrreeeeppppaaaarrrreeee PPPPeeeeoooopppplllleeee ffffoooorrrr CCCChhhhaaaannnnggggeeee????
Saturday, 1 PM
Grant Carrington, Michael Kandel, James Morrow (moderator), Mike
Resnick, Kristine Kathryn Rusch
This panel tied in well with the preceding one ("If This Goes
On..."). For example, the Robert Lucky quote above about the
predictability of change is equally applicable to our attempts to
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 4
deal with it.
My initial answer to the question posed by _t_h_i_s panel was, "No.
If it did, there wouldn't be the fight over electronic fanzine
eligibility that there is." Morrow's initial answer was yes; as he
said, "I'm prepared to deal with change. I know technology. I knew
to turn the microphone on." Carrington hedged, "It depends on the
person." Kandel admitted, "I'm not really prepared for the present,"
and went on to describe a $3.4 million lawsuit over the dismissal of
a high school girl from the cheerleading squad. Rusch felt that
"science fiction explores the results of change rather than
preparing us for change." But Resnick, in seeming contradiction to
this, claimed that "science fiction is first to present technology,
but last to present the moral and ethical issues about it."
A thought which had occurred to me, and which was voiced by
Kandel, was that it is perhaps not so much that science fiction
prepares people for change as that the people who are prepared for
change read science fiction. Reading science fiction to prepare
oneself for change strikes me as similar to Tanith Lee's rationale
for reading horror stories because they give you practice being
frightened.
As evidence of science fictions fans' inflexibility, Dozois and
Resnick said, "If you want to make a lot of science fiction fans
mad, portray the Third World as it really is." (This has resonances
in some of S. M. Stirling's comments in the "Build an Alternate
History" panel below.) Fandom is almost entirely white and middle-
class. (Looking around the room for this panel certainly seemed to
bear that thesis out.)
Regarding why change is often portrayed negatively, Resnick
said, "Every writer has at most one utopia he can create," so most
futures are dystopias. Of course, a writer could set several
stories in the same utopian future, or create some "almost-utopias,"
but you get the point: there can be only one "best of all possible
worlds."
Morrow pointed to a current story, John Kessel's "Buffalo," as
being a wonderful example of the characters in the story missing the
direction of change entirely. And there is a certain irony to this,
in that H. G. Wells (a character in "Buffalo") managed to predict
air wars and the atom bomb, but couldn't see most of the direction
of social change. (This is also captured rather effectively in the
film _T_i_m_e _A_f_t_e_r _T_i_m_e, in which Wells has a time machine and uses it
to come to modern-day San Francisco to chase Jack the Ripper.)
I would note that perhaps one reason that alternate histories
are so popular is that they deal with change (in a very specific
manner). When fans pick holes in them, it's their way of trying to
understand what change means and how it works. Alternate histories
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 5
were in fact mentioned in passing here--at least I have a note
referring to someone talking about a Denny's full of truck drivers
all reading Morrow's _O_n_l_y _B_e_g_o_t_t_e_n _D_a_u_g_h_t_e_r, and if that's not
alternate history, I don't know what is!
Just as we reached this point, Program Ops sent someone in to
hold up a sign to the panelists saying, "STOP!" As one of them
said, "I guess they want us to stop change."
Kaffeeklatsch: PPPPaaaatttt CCCCaaaaddddiiiiggggaaaannnn
Saturday, 2 PM
I had never been to a kaffeeklatsch before, but since I think
Pat Cadigan's work is among that which is just about the best thing
since movable type, I decided I had to sign up for this. Luckily
for me, there were people there more willing to ask questions and
draw her out (not that she's incredibly shy or anything!), because I
wasn't quite sure how these things work.
Cadigan talked about how she worked for Hallmark for ten years
and therefore knew "corporate hardcases"; that's why she can draw
them accurately in her work. Hallmark was interesting, she said,
because it had a very schizophrenic nature. To the outside world,
it had to appear as a very conservative, family-oriented ("family
values," I suppose) company, while in actuality it had a very high
percentage of gay employees, because of what she felt was an
accepting environment. Even now, she remains in Kansas City (she
was born in Fitchburg, Massachusetts), and says that Kansas City has
one of the country's largest gay pride parades.
Her literary influences seem to have been authors with what she
termed "original voices." Among these were Cordwainer Smith
("Cordwainer Smith is God") and Tom Reamy, whose "Pottifee, Petey,
and Me" still awaits the publication of _T_h_e _L_a_s_t _D_a_n_g_e_r_o_u_s _V_i_s_i_o_n_s.
She said she had seen the manuscript and gave us a brief outline of
the plot. We asked about whether the rights hadn't reverted to his
estate by now, but Cadigan wasn't sure. Other "original voices" she
listed were James Tiptree, Jr., and Howard Waldrop.
In response to another question, she said that her work had
first appeared in _N_e_w _D_i_m_e_n_s_i_o_n_s _1_1 and now, "ten years later, I'm
an instant success."
In regard to what she writes about, Cadigan said that in a
workshop she learned that there were first-order stories (write
about building an invention, e.g., the automobile), second-order
stories (write about learning to cope with the invention, e.g.,
build some roads), and third-order stories (write about further
effects, e.g., suburbs). She decided she wanted to write third-
order stories, because she felt those were the best, and wrote
_S_y_n_n_e_r_s to be primarily a third-order story with some first-order
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 6
elements.
Alas, I had to leave this somewhat early in order to make it
back to the Convention Center in time for the next item.
Preview: BBBBrrrraaaammmm SSSSttttooookkkkeeeerrrr''''ssss _D_r_a_c_u_l_a
Saturday, 3 PM
Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Coppola
There was apparently some confusion over this item. A friend
said that she didn't realize that Coppola was going to talk for an
hour before showing the movie. Huh? Eventually I realized that she
thought this was a sneak preview of the entire film _D_r_a_c_u_l_a, rather
than a preview in the sense of overview. "Preview" is one of those
overloaded words in English, and future committees should be sure to
clarify which meaning they are using. This was particularly
confusing at MagiCon, since George R. R. Martin _d_i_d have a sneak
preview of _D_o_o_r_s, also labeled a "preview."
I was glad I had a press ribbon, because by the time I arrived
the only seats left were in the press section. There had been some
talk about Coppola holding a separate press conference, but that
didn't happen. The hour started with a ten-minute film on the
making of _D_r_a_c_u_l_a, then Coppola talked for a while, and finally the
audience got to ask some questions.
The main information we got, and the reason Roman Coppola was
there, was that the special effects were being done using only
techniques that were available in 1897, when the book was written.
So there would be no computer morphing or anything like that; all
the effects were done using camera tricks or stage magic. Roman
Coppola was the second unit director and the person in charge of all
these effects, and talked a little bit about them. For example,
many of the techniques he used were taken from a 1897 book on
illusion that Roman had discovered when he was in film school.
Coppola (Francis Ford) began by talking about his early
association with _D_r_a_c_u_l_a, when as a camp counselor he used to read
the book to his charges at camp to get them to sleep early so he
could visit his girlfriend across the lake. (Whether this worked
because the boys didn't argue about going to bed because they were
eager for the story, or because it was so boring it put them right
to sleep, he didn't say.) Coppola's favorite Dracula is John
Carradine from _H_o_u_s_e _o_f _D_r_a_c_u_l_a. He says his version of _D_r_a_c_u_l_a
will be the most accurate yet, with the closest version he's seen up
to now being Murnau's _N_o_s_f_e_r_a_t_u. When he was asked about the BBC
version _C_o_u_n_t _D_r_a_c_u_l_a (starring Louis Jourdan), which most people
list as the most accurate, Coppola admitted he hadn't seen it.
While I can understand his not wanting to be overly influenced by
previous versions of the story, I would think that he should have
watched what is generally accepted as the best version.
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 7
At least Coppola was fairly knowledgeable about Dracula, though
the script seems to take great liberties, giving Dracula a lost love
and having other strange non-canonical touches. Coppola commented
that it was curious that the two great classics of the horror film
(Frankenstein and Dracula) were both based on Byron, though the
latter was one step removed by being based on John Polidori's
vampire, who was based on Lord Byron. (Both _T_h_e _V_a_m_p_y_r_e and
_F_r_a_n_k_e_n_s_t_e_i_n came out of a bet made by Polidori, Byron, and Mary
Shelley one night in Switzerland during a summer spent there with
Percy Bysshe Shelley.)
Still, Coppola claims James V. West's script is accurate to the
book. The film was shot entirely on a sound stage, in 69 days, with
a budget of $40 million. Even with that budget, the film had to be
carefully planned to minimize the number of sets needed. Coppola
says one reason films cost so much is that every department not only
wants to do 100% of the movie--they want to overproduce "just to be
sure." So, for example, the costume department will decide that it
must have the absolute ultimate in costumes, and in addition, will
want to make some extra costumes, just in case they're needed. This
can run the cost up very fast. The advance planning necessary to
keep the costs down helps, but Coppola admits that one side effect
of all that planning is that you get sick of the movie faster than
if you just dived in.
Gary Oldman (of _S_i_d _a_n_d _N_a_n_c_y, _P_r_i_c_k _U_p _Y_o_u_r _E_a_r_s, and _J_F_K) was
chosen for the title role as being the actor that Coppola felt had
both the range necessary to play Dracula in all his forms and at all
his ages, and the ability to show the passion and love that Dracula
feels. The score is performed by a symphony orchestra rather than a
smaller group or a synthesizer. Coppola had wanted to commission a
classical Polish composer (Poland being where most of the classical
composers are these days), but discovered that would take too long.
So instead, he hired Wojciech Kilar, who did a lot of the music for
Andrzej Wajda's films.
During the question-and-answer session, someone asked Coppola
what his favorite science fiction was. He said he liked _T_h_e _D_a_y _t_h_e
_E_a_r_t_h _S_t_o_o_d _S_t_i_l_l, but also mentioned _C_h_i_l_d_h_o_o_d'_s _E_n_d--not a movie,
but a book. He must be one of the few directors in Hollywood who
reads science fiction (or has read it). In general, he seemed very
enthusiastic about his work in general and this film in particular-
-more like a fan than a famous director.
Someone asked his about his "cinemobile" (named the Silverfish)
and whether it was true that he spent all his time in that rather
than on the set itself. Coppola said that having a portable
lab/viewing room/etc. made his work easier but that he always
directed from right next to the camera, and did not hide out in the
Silverfish.
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 8
In response to a question about rumors that the film would be
very violent or erotic, Coppola said that these must have been
started by someone who saw all the footage that was shot. Coppola
said they never intended to use _a_l_l the footage, though I suspect
the film will have a R rating rather than a PG-13.
Coppola advised people trying to break into Hollywood as
writers not to write screenplays, but instead to write short stories
or one-act plays.
Among upcoming projects, Coppola mentioned that Columbia
Pictures is trying to get the rights for _D_r. _S_t_r_a_n_g_e for Roman to
direct.
Asked to sum up the message of the film, Coppola said, "Love is
stronger than evil; love is stronger than death."
Panel: BBBBuuuuiiiilllldddd aaaannnn AAAAlllltttteeeerrrrnnnnaaaatttteeee HHHHiiiissssttttoooorrrryyyy
Saturday, 5 PM
Barbara Hambly, Cortney Skinner (moderator),
S. M. Stirling, Harry Turtledove
Judith Tarr was supposed to be on this panel, but couldn't make
it. However, Harry Turtledove credited her _i_n _a_b_s_e_n_t_i_a with the
inspiration for his latest book, _T_h_e _G_u_n_s _o_f _t_h_e _S_o_u_t_h (previously
known as _T_h_e _L_o_n_g _D_r_u_m _R_o_l_l). It seems that he was talking to
Judith about one of her books and she bemoaned the fact that the
cover on it was "as anachronistic as Robert E. Lee holding an Uzi."
Well, Turtledove thought about this and decided that Uzis were not
the right weapon, but what about if Lee had an AK-47? What if Lee
had a _l_o_t of AK-47s? And who would give Lee a lot of AK-47s? Time
traveling Afrikaaners, of course. And so _T_h_e _G_u_n_s _o_f _t_h_e _S_o_u_t_h was
born.
The question of how to choose a change point was raised.
Stirling claims the trick is to avoid the really over-used one. But
he claims lots have been done with the Armada as the critical point;
I can locate only three: John Brunner's _T_i_m_e_s _W_i_t_h_o_u_t _N_u_m_b_e_r,
Phyllis Eisenstein's _S_h_a_d_o_w _o_f _E_a_r_t_h, and Keith Roberts's _P_a_v_a_n_e.
As the panelists agreed, catching the author in an error in his
or her alternate history is part of the game. (I'm glad they do it
too; it makes me feel a little less guilty about pointing them out
when I find them. And they also said they love it when history
experts compliment them on the good job they did.) And they don't
worry about making the same mistake more than once--fans _w_i_l_l write
them to tell them. Turtledove says that a common mistake is to slip
up on the language. For example, a United States without a major
European immigration in the early 1900s would not speak a language
full of Yiddishisms. On the flip side, making the language accurate
to its period or its world will often alienate the readers and
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 9
possibly cause censorship problems. In a story set in a world in
which slavery continues to exist, the word "nigger" would more than
likely still be in common use. But using it in a story can cause
problems (ask Mark Twain). The panelists agreed that the best
solution was to use it, but only in dialogue.
This led to what is the most useful (and perhaps most
controversial) idea to emerge from this panel. To paraphrase
Resnick and Dozois from the "Does SF Prepare People for Change"
panel (above): "If you want to make a lot of science fiction fans
mad, portray the people of a different era as they really were."
When Stirling first introduced himself, he said, "I'm
S. M. Stirling, or as I'm often called, that fascist bastard." This
is no doubt due to his Drakka alternate history trilogy (_M_a_r_c_h_i_n_g
_T_h_r_o_u_g_h _G_e_o_r_g_i_a, _U_n_d_e_r _t_h_e _Y_o_k_e, and _T_h_e _S_t_o_n_e _D_o_g_s), in which
Tories driven out of the United States upon its independence
colonize South Africa and eventually begin to conquer the world. As
someone on the Net has described it, the Drakka "have rejected
Christian/Bourgeois morality, and follow a philosophy close aligned
with Nietzsche and Gorbineau. The Drakka give a whole new meaning
to the dictum 'Die Macht ist Das Recht.' The Drakka are both
repellent and attractive. They are the most ecologically sound
resource developers on the planet, but they treat the people they
conquer like excrement." Now, Stirling has stated that the Drakka
are the villains, but apparently a lot of readers haven't gotten the
message that he thinks so, so they think Stirling believes what the
Drakka believe, and hence describe him as a "fascist bastard." But
what he has done is portray the Drakka with the mind-set he thinks
_t_h_e_y would have. His claim is that people of different eras thought
differently than we do, and that drawing them accurately--especially
if one of them is your "hero"--either leads your audience to think
_y_o_u think that way, or alienates them by painting a picture of
people they can't identify with. (I should note that while this
sounds plausible, and Resnick has run into the same problem with the
protagonist of his Kirinyaga stories, Connie Willis in a recent
_L_o_c_u_s interview says that we often have this belief that people of
different eras felt differently about things than we do and that,
for example, the death of a child in an era where childhood deaths
were more common did not affect people as much. She says her
research found this belief to be wrong, and she wrote _D_o_o_m_s_d_a_y _B_o_o_k
in part to counter it. So everyone has to decide for her or
himself.)
Another problem with attempts at accuracy is that what we think
of as "common knowledge" is often wrong. For example: George
Washington and the cherry tree. Now at this point, most readers
know this is a fictional story, but there are certainly other cases
in which if you tell the truth, readers will think you got it wrong,
and vice versa.
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 10
Stirling also said that while the cover for _M_a_r_c_h_i_n_g _T_h_r_o_u_g_h
_G_e_o_r_g_i_a was accurate, the covers for _U_n_d_e_r _t_h_e _Y_o_k_e and _T_h_e _S_t_o_n_e
_D_o_g_s were not, because the publisher didn't want to put swastikas on
the cover. That struck several people as strange, since swastikas
on a cover seem to sell books rather than inhibit sales. Len
Deighton's _S_S-_G_B did quite well with a swastika, and Robert Harris's
_F_a_t_h_e_r_l_a_n_d has nothing _b_u_t a swastika on the cover.
Hambly described this as the "obsessive detail panel," which
led an audience member to ask about research. While a lot of
research is done in major university libraries and via electronic
networks, most of the panelists had done some first-hand research as
well, not in the sense of going back to 1860 of course, but in the
sense of wearing clothing of that period; trying to cook, wash, and
live in the manner of that period for some length of time; fired
weapons of that period; and so on. (What they discovered was that
living in these historical periods is not fun, and they didn't even
have to cope with disease, hygiene problems, and so on.) And if
you're writing about the Civil War or World War II, there's no lack
of documentation. In fact, these eras were described as "over-
documented." Turtledove said that he asked someone for an estimate
of how many men were in a particular regiment and got back a
complete roster of who was in it, where they were from, their family
histories, etc., etc. And what he discovered he probably can't even
use because no one would believe it. For example, there was at
least one woman in the regiment. But if you put a woman in a Civil
War regiment in a novel, everyone will scream that you're doing it
from political correctness rather than accuracy. (In the alternate
Civil War panel, it was noted that the Confederate Army actually had
a couple of black regiments. This, too, would not be accepted in a
novel.)
Turtledove talked about his upcoming book, _I_n _t_h_e _B_a_l_a_n_c_e, in
which World War II is rolling along, it's May 1942, and then the
aliens land. He describes it as "_F_o_o_t_f_a_l_l meets _W_i_n_d_s _o_f _W_a_r."
(Who knows--that could be the blurb. Anything is possible. Some
bookstores are putting the promotional flyer for _T_h_e _G_u_n_s _o_f _t_h_e
_S_o_u_t_h in the history section. Maybe they think Lee _d_i_d have AK-
47s!)
Skinner, on the other hand, is working on a project a la
"Vinland the Dream" (by Kim Stanley Robinson)--an artifact of a Gobi
Desert dinosaur expedition (that never existed in our world).
Skinner is an artist, and the project consists of authentic-looking
documents, newspaper clippings, telegrams, steamship tickets, and so
on, all carefully faked to look authentic. (If you've read "Vinland
the Dream" you know what I'm talking about.) I commented that the
only problem was that a few hundred years in the future someone
might find this project and think the expedition it documented
really did happen!
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 11
HHHHuuuuggggoooo AAAAwwwwaaaarrrrddddssss
Saturday, 8:30 PM
First the awards:
Novel: Lois McMaster Bujold, _B_a_r_r_a_y_a_r (Baen)
Novella: Nancy Kress, "Beggars in Spain," IASFM, April 1991
Novelette: Isaac Asimov, "Gold," _A_n_a_l_o_g, September 1991
Short Story: Geoffrey A. Landis, "A Walk in the Sun," IASFM,
October 1991
Non-Fiction Book: Charles Addams, _T_h_e _W_o_r_l_d _o_f _C_h_a_r_l_e_s _A_d_d_a_m_s
Original Artwork: Michael Whelan, cover of _T_h_e _S_u_m_m_e_r _Q_u_e_e_n
Dramatic Presentation: _T_e_r_m_i_n_a_t_o_r _2 (Carolco)
Professional Editor: Gardner Dozois
Professional Artist: Michael Whelan
Fanzine: Mimosa, Dick and Nicki Lynch
Semiprozine: Locus, Charles Brown
Fan Writer: Dave Langford
Fan Artist: Brad Foster
John W. Campbell Award: Ted Chiang
First Fandom Award: Arthur Widner, Jr., Nelson Bond, Art Saha,
and J. Harvey Haggert
Big Heart Award: Samanda Jeude
(The last three are not Hugos.)
Now the commentary:
What a fuck-up!
I am not one to use obscenity lightly in a con report, so when
I say, "What a fuck-up!" please understand I am talking about _m_a_j_o_r
problems.
"Like what?" you ask.
Like allowing Andre Norton to award the Gryphon Award at the
Hugo Awards ceremony.
Like the master of ceremonies having no idea that he was
supposed to match his reading of the nominees to slides being
projected, which he couldn't see very well from the podium anyway.
Like the master of ceremonies not knowing what order to do the
awards in, and almost skipping one and repeating another.
Like having the slides kludged together by the committee so
that, for example, some artists had a slide of their work and others
just one of their signatures from the Hugo Nominee information form.
(And my work was represented by a piece from the _M_T _V_O_I_D, which is
not known for its layout or design; I would have preferred to send
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 12
them a copy of one from _T_h_e _R_e_a_d_i_n_g _E_d_g_e, which would have looked
more like the other nominees. But compared to all the other
problems, the importance of this is lower than whale shit, as my old
supervisor used to say.)
Like announcing the wrong nominee as the winner.
Yes, that's right, folks: in the fanzine category, Spider
Robinson announced that the winner was _L_a_n'_s _L_a_n_t_e_r_n edited by
George Laskowski ("Lan"). As Lan approached the podium, the slide
announcing the winner flashed up on the screen--except that it said
"_M_i_m_o_s_a: Dick and Nicki Lynch." At that point, I don't think
either Lan or Robinson could see the slide, but the person holding
the award saw that it was engraved to _M_i_m_o_s_a, and Lan saw that when
he took it, so Lan thought fast, stepped up to the podium, said he
had no prepared speech, said "Thank you," and walked backstage.
This seemed odd to people who knew Lan--he had speeches both times
previous that he had won, and that he wouldn't have at least thanked
Maia seemed unlikely. Therefore we suspected that the slide may
have been right, and sure enough, after the next award, Lan came
back out with the Hugo and Robinson announced there had been an
error and _M_i_m_o_s_a was the winner. Could Dick and Nicki Lynch come up
to the podium to receive their award? Well, Dick could, but Nicki
had gone to the women's room and was unavailable. After another
award or two, they announced a break to change the slide tray
(actually I was told later it was so that the staff could
frantically open all the envelopes to make sure the cards inside
were correct), and the audience called for Nicki then, so she did
finally get her moment of triumph.
How did this happen? Well, for reasons known only to the
committee, they decided that the winner's names should be nicely
calligraphed on fancy cards (in spite of the fact that only the
master of ceremonies would see the cards). But the advance time for
the cards was such that they had to have a card made up for each
nominee--they had no way of knowing then who the winners would be.
How the wrong card actually got in will remain a matter of
speculation for years to come.
People observed that it was at least some consolation that the
"wrong winner" had won a couple of Hugos already; having this happen
in the other direction would have been much worse. And many people
observed that had this happened in the semi-prozine category, it
would have been quite entertaining no matter which direction it
happened in. (Well, perhaps not to Charlie Brown and Andy Porter.)
I observed to Lan later than he now could put "2.0000095-time Hugo
winner" on his colophon, giving him the edge over those people who
had won only precisely two times. And Lan received universal
acclamation for being a real "class act" in his genuine enthusiasm
and happiness in passing the award on to the winners. Many of us
feel that ConFrancisco should present him with a special award for
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 13
"grace under pressure." (Laurie Mann thinks it should be named the
"Coonskin Cap Award" after his trademark hat.) The most popular
button of the following day among the nominees seemed to be "For all
I know, I might have won a Hugo," made up by Brad Templeton of
ClariNet. He also made one for Nancy Kress that said, "I lost the
Hugo to Nancy Kress." And Connie Willis went around the next day
talking about how she managed to lose bigger than any previous Hugo
nominee.
The Gryphon Award was first given out at Noreascon 3 at the
Hugo Awards ceremony there, with the excuse that Norton was a Guest
of Honor, and she had apparently made a fuss when this award was
originally scheduled to be presented at one of her panels or talks.
Confiction and Chicon V moved it to the Alternate Awards ceremony,
but MagiCon again found itself under pressure by Norton--the claim
was she had given a lot of time and money to the convention, to
which Nick Simicich responded, "How much do I have to pay to get to
present my award for white male writers at the Hugo ceremonies?"
(No answer was forthcoming.) The Gryphon Award is for the "Best
Unpublished Fantasy Manuscript by a Woman" (who has had more than
one piece published). Norton's rationale for this was that "the
women" don't win as many awards, so this is needed. At Noreascon,
C. J. Cherryh won the award for Best Novel and Connie Willis on for
Best Novella. This year, Lois McMaster Bujold won for Best Novel
and Nancy Kress for Best Novella. In fact, this year more than half
the fiction nominees were women. So what on earth is this
ridiculous award doing at the Hugo Award ceremony?! If the
Libertarians and the Japanese and everyone else are presenting their
awards at the Alternate Award ceremony, then Andre Norton should be
also.
Samanda Jeude is one of the founders of Electrical Eggs.
The Hugo was designed by Phil Tortorici and includes a piece of
the gantry from Launch Complex 26 at Cape Canaveral, from which
Explorer 1 had been launched. Everyone agreed it was one of the
best Hugo designs they had seen.
The Hugo Awards ceremony was preceded by a fifteen-minute slide
show retrospective of fifty years of Worldcons. The slide show
included pictures of program books, covers of Hugo-winning novels,
photos of the guests of honor, and other remembrances and was
produced by Scott Robinson and Sally Martin. Unlike the ceremony
itself, the slide show was universally well-received. Well done!
(One author commented that what he liked about it the best was that
people were applauding the _b_o_o_k_s!)
As far as my opinions on the awards, I have to say there is no
justice, or at least only partial justice. "Gold" clearly won
because it was Asimov's final story--or people thought it was,
though now I see there are one or two more still in the pipeline for
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 14
the magazines. It was the weakest in its category; Pat Cadigan's
"Dispatches from the Revolution" absolutely blew it away in quality,
but she was up against the sympathy vote. Oh, well, maybe her
"Golden Boy" will take the Hugo next year (hint, hint). "A Walk in
the Sun" seemed to win more because it was the only real hard
science fiction short story than because of any great merit on its
part. Connie Willis should have won at least one Hugo, given her
strong placement in the nominations, and this would have been the
category I would have chosen it in ( for "In the Late Cretaceous"),
because I also thought Nancy Kress's Hugo for "Beggars in Spain" was
right on the money. (I must admit this was a strong year for short
fiction.) And _B_a_r_r_a_y_a_r in the novel category is quite reasonable.
As far as my opinions on the recipients, I have to say that Michael
Whelan was as usual the most gracious--when he finished talking
about how good all the other nominees were, you almost felt as if
they had all won. Charlie Brown, on the other hand, was even more
pompous than previously. He said that when he heard that he was
nominated this year, he started to worry, but that turned out to be
unnecessary. For those of us who are nominated and know that we
have no chance of winning, the idea of worrying that one might not
win strikes us as really egotistical.
Your mileage may vary.
Party: HHHHuuuuggggoooo NNNNoooommmmiiiinnnneeeeeeeessss
Saturday, 10:30 PM
ConFrancisco (sponsor)
The Hugo Nominees Party (it used to be the Hugo Losers Party,
but they started letting the winners in as well) was fairly crowded
and very hot. Crowded in part because there were more nominees this
year (because of ties, although the number of multiple nominees may
have cancelled this out), and in part because it is also open to all
SFWA members as well. Hot because the ventilation and air
conditioning was not perfect and also because I was wearing a
tuxedo--in shorts and a T-shirt I might have been more comfortable.
The Hugo nomination remembrances this year were pads of paper with a
cover that says "Hugo Nominee 1992." I suppose one shouldn't look a
gift horse in the mouth, but this gift lacks the permanence of the
previous one, being the sort of note-pad one rips pages out of as
one uses them. I do agree, though, that something to write or draw
on is eminently suitable for a bunch of writers and artists. (And I
saved my plastic champagne glass as a more permanent reminder.
Which reminds me: kudos to the ConFrancisco folks for having non-
alcoholic champagne as well as alcoholic--I drink the latter, but
there are many who don't and they appreciate the thoughtfulness.)
I also got to see the fanzine Hugo--it definitely said _M_i_m_o_s_a.
Oh, by the way, to whomever from the ConFrancisco committee I
was discussing Anne McCaffrey's _C_o_o_k_i_n_g _O_u_t _o_f _T_h_i_s _W_o_r_l_d with: I
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 15
saw a reprint of it Monday in the dealers room from Wildside Press
for $10 in trade paperback and $40 in hardback.
Panel: WWWWhhhheeeennnn IIIIssss HHHHuuuummmmoooorrrr NNNNOOOOTTTT FFFFuuuunnnnnnnnyyyy????
Sunday, 12 noon
Esther Friesner, Tappan King (moderator), Terry Pratchett,
Bradley Strickland, Connie Willis
Willis said she wanted to start by saying that some recent
non-funny things in her life were going to Hugo Awards ceremony and
losing bigger than anyone else ever did, or for that matter going to
the Hugo Awards ceremony at all.
The main question the panel addressed, though, was whether
there are things that shouldn't be written about humorously. A line
of Byron was quoted by someone: "And if I laugh at any thing, it is
that I not weep." This would seem to indicate the feeling that even
(perhaps especially) serious topics are allowable. While death is
certainly fair game (Friesner recommended _T_h_e _W_r_o_n_g _B_o_x as a very
funny film about people dying in strange ways), she said that she
couldn't see writing humorously about abuse. Other panelists
agreed, but Pratchett elaborated by saying that he could tell abuse
jokes and the audience would laugh, but we wouldn't be happy that we
had laughed. Humor that leaves the audience feeling unhappy or
guilty is not successful humor. Gross humor, he said, falls
somewhere in the middle and gave the following example: What is the
difference between an oral and a rectal thermometer? The taste. As
he pointed out, the audience laughed, but they felt guilty about
laughing.
All this led up to Willis's observation that "anything _c_a_n be
funny, but there are definite advantages to picking something funny
in the first place." Willis said that she has the problem that
because she writes such a high percentage of humorous stories, she
often finds readers of her serious works expect them to be funny as
well. For example, she said one fan told her he liked "The Last of
the Winnebagos" but that it just wasn't as funny as some of her
other stuff. (Lord knows what he'll make of _D_o_o_m_s_d_a_y _B_o_o_k!)
Strickland said that self-deprecating humor almost always
works, in part because it is not laughing _a_t the person being hurt.
And others proposed that humor is a defense mechanism, and tries to
give people a sense of perspective.
As far as the outer fringes of allowability, Pratchett claimed
that in fifty years, it would be considered acceptable to have a
sitcom set in a death camp. (He also said that he had considered
predicting a "soap" instead of a sitcom, but thought that the pun
would be in poor taste. This got a laugh of sorts from the
audience, but it was the same sort of laugh that the thermometer
joke got.) Even now, he said, there is '_A_l_l_o, '_A_l_l_o, set in a
MagiCon September 7, 1992 Page 16
Nazi-occupied territory. But Jerry Lewis's _T_h_e _D_a_y _t_h_e _C_l_o_w_n _C_r_i_e_d
(set in a death camp) is having difficulty getting a release. (I
asked Pratchett later, and he had not heard of Lina Wertmuller's
1976 _S_e_v_e_n _B_e_a_u_t_i_e_s, a semi-comedy set in a death camp.)
Pratchett may be right. After all, Mel Brooks has made fun of
the Inquisition, and Pratchett has a section in one of his books set
in a torture chamber, where he looks at it as just another
workplace: there is a coffee machine in the corner, a bulletin board
announcing births and retirements, and so on. Pratchett describes
this as illustrating the "banality of evil" that became so important
a philosophical topic after World War II.
Pratchett also wrote about a convention of serial killers,
complete with panels, films, parties, etc. Strickland commented,
"At that convention of serial killers, I bet they were real careful
to give their Hugos to the right people."
As far as humorous looks at reality, Friesner recommended _T_h_e
_C_a_r_t_o_o_n _H_i_s_t_o_r_y _o_f _t_h_e _U_n_i_v_e_r_s_e and _T_h_e _C_a_r_t_o_o_n _H_i_s_t_o_r_y _o_f _A_m_e_r_i_c_a.
And apropos of nothing, she mentioned that her daughter's hamster
bit her-- and then the hamster died.
Willis closed with a story of how she went to a funeral home to
arrange for a funeral for her grandmother (I think) and the funeral
director asked her what sort of furniture her grandmother had, so
that he could help choose a casket that fit in with that. This
struck Willis as so bizarre that it was all she could do to keep
from laughing out loud, which she felt would be considered
inappropriate behavior.
(End of Part 3)