@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/8/93 -- Vol. 12, No. 15
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Holmdel 4N-509
Wednesdays at noon.
_D_A_T_E _T_O_P_I_C
10/27 THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS by Robert A. Heinlein (Classic SF)
11/17 BRIAR ROSE by Jane Yolen (Nebula Nominee)
12/08 STAND ON ZANZIBAR by John Brunner (Classic SF)
01/05 A MILLION OPEN DOORS by John Barnes (Nebula Nominee)
01/26 Bookswap
02/16 Demo of Electronic Hugo and Nebula Anthology (MT)
Outside events:
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the second
Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call 201-933-2724 for
details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society meets on the third
Saturday of every month in Belleville; call 201-432-5965 for details.
HO Chair: John Jetzt MT 2G-432 908-957-5087 holly!jetzt
LZ Chair: Rob Mitchell HO 1C-523 908-834-1267 holly!jrrt
MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzfs3!leeper
HO Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 908-949-7076 homxc!11366ns
LZ Librarian: Lance Larsen LZ 3L-312 908-576-3346 quartet!lfl
MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3D-441 908-957-5619 mtgzfs3!leeper
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-329 908-957-2070 mtgpfs1!ecl
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. Well, the time has come to start forming some opinions about
Bill Clinton as President. That's for those of us who wanted some
serious data on how he was doing rather than just guessing from his
record. I mean, you never really know ahead of time how someone is
going to react to knowing he is suddenly the most powerful person
in the world. Clinton said in the campaign he would not raise
taxes on the middle class, but did anyone really believe that?
Clinton's attitude toward his campaign promises is no better or
worse than any other President. That is, if you tell an obvious
lie, it isn't a lie. You know, like "the check is in the mail" or
"of course I don't think your hair looks silly that way" or "sure,
I don't mind if you borrow that book." It's like Jack Benny
THE MT VOID Page 2
claiming to be 39, or like telling a kid that a bunny is going to
come and leave colorful eggs, or like saying that we can reduce the
deficit without raising taxes. These are all silly fantasies that
by mutual consent nobody believes. But Clinton said it with a
straight face and it is a pleasant fantasy. And the face telling
us was so earnest and young! I believe in an orderly universe and
that all Presidents have the same number of square inches on their
faces. What sets Clinton apart from his last two predecessors is
that the two Republicans' skin had accordioned into the crevices
and wrinkles. That really means old age in a President like they
do in anyone else--but for our own comfort we call the wrinkles
"character" in a face. Somehow Clinton lacks that character in his
face and we all know that the reason is that under all that skin he
still has something keeping his face inflated so that he looks
young and enthusiastic, but denying him the character of wrinkles.
I guess it's like inflating a balloon. His face really looks a lot
like a kid from your third grade class and when he purses his lips
to talk about the economy you expect to see a big pink bubble of
gum come out of that mouth.
Incidentally, the rule that presidents' heads all have the same
surface area applies to surface area of all but the ears.
Otherwise Lyndon Baines Johnson would quickly disprove the rule.
If you upholstered LBJ's head with as much flesh as Clinton's head
has, when you were done with the ears you would have only enough
left to cover a skull the size of a medium Golden Delicious apple.
Well, I started talking about the budget but I haven't gotten very
far so I will have to continue next time.
===================================================================
2. Starting in this issue is our ConFrancisco convention report,
which will run in the next four issues as well. [-ecl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
leeper@mtgzfs3.att.com
I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.
-- Charles Schultz
ConFrancisco 1993
Con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Evelyn C. Leeper
(Part 1 of 5)
[Mark has offered to write up some of the panels that he
attended that I missed, so this is actually a joint report. The
panels that he wrote up are labeled as such.]
ConFrancisco, the 1993 World Science Fiction Convention, and
the 51st World Science Fiction Convention, was held September 2
through September 6 in San Francisco, California. The attendance
was calculated as 7642. Being that San Francisco is harder to get
to from Europe than East Coast conventions, there were fewer
Europeans in evidence than usual.
We had arrived in California about a week before the
convention, spending the time visiting with Mark's parents and
traveling up to the northern California coast around Mendocino. We
took the train up from the peninsula Thursday morning and checked
into the Nikko, our hotel, which was about a fifteen-minute walk
from the Moscone Convention Center. Kate had already checked in and
left us a note saying she was going over to register.
Facilities
The convention facilities were on the whole excellent. The
rooms for the panels were right outside the large "concourse" where
the dealers room, the art show, the exhibits, and so on were being
held. This made dropping into the dealers room or checking the
message board between panels a real possibility (although the
message board seemed less utilized than at previous conventions--
people I knew where there never checked in, and so on). However,
the films were in the Nikko and the masquerade and Hugo ceremony
were in the other section of the convention center, across the
street. The latter was far too small--set up with sufficient
backstage area, there was seating for only 2000 people. This meant
enormous lines for the masquerade and many people turned away, with
the result that a lot of people didn't even try to make it into the
Hugo ceremony. I don't know what attendance they were expecting if
they thought 2000 seats would be sufficient. Even worse, it was
flat seating, as opposed to ramped theater style, so people in the
back couldn't see anything. I know, because we ended up in the back
for the masquerade. (There was VIP seating for Hugo nominees, but
having stood in line with our friends, it seemed crash to dump them.
We did move up during the intermission though.) For the Hugo
ceremony, we had front-row seats, but I had to write 110,000 words
last year to get them. :-) The parties and Con Suite (open only in
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 2
the evnings) were in the Parc 55, which was right across the street
from the Nikko--convenient for us, but not for people in the ANA,
the main hotel right near the convention center.
The restaurant situation was infinitely better than last year:
loads of restaurants within walking distance, including more
Japanese restaurants than I've ever seen in one location. We went
to a Cambodian restaurant the first night by car (the Angkor Wat),
but after that made do with the sushi places and other restaurants
between the Nikko and the convention center. The one problem was
getting breakfast on Sunday and Monday--many of the breakfast places
in the area cater to the business crowd and were closed.
Registration and All That Stuff
Registration was incredibly slow. We arrived at 11:15 AM
Thursday and it took an hour. Kate arrived about 10 AM and it took
her an hour and a half. One problem was that the materials didn't
arrive until late Wednesday night, making a practice run-through
with staff impossible. They could have used more stations, and I
would strongly suggest that future conventions have the materials on
hand by Tuesday morning, with early registration on Wednesday
afternoon and evening to ease the crush. Also, the signs indicating
the alphabet range from each station should be between six and ten
feet off the floor, not resting on the floor, where they can't be
seen through the crowds.
Another problem was that after registering, we had to get in
another line to pick up the souvenir books and other free books.
This was equally long, and someone came by saying people we should
leave the line and come back later--there was plenty of stuff and
more was being brought in constantly. Silly us, we believed him.
The result was that by the time we went back to pick up our stuff
(later in the day), they were already out of the free copies of
Connie Willis's _D_o_o_m_s_d_a_y _B_o_o_k. Second strong suggestion: before you
say there will be plenty of X later, make sure that's true. (Third,
mild suggestion: make badges available with a choice of pins or
clips--it's very hard to clip a badge onto a T-shirt.)
There was also a third line, albeit a short one, for picking up
program participant material. At that point I also got what was
labeled my "Hugo nominee pin," which turned out to be a square of
silver with black paint on it forming a rocket silhouette. The
paint flaked off when I peeled the backing out to attach it to my
badge. It turned out that these were merely temporary: the real
rocket pins were very similar to previous years' (though lacking the
year engraved on them), and had been delayed when the luggage they
were in was misdirected on the way from Russia!
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 3
For the first time at any Worldcon I have been to (and that's a
lot), the newsletters were almost always on time, and never more
than an hour late. The main drop-off point always had a complete
supply of all newsletters.
As always, there were lots of flyers on the freebie tables, and
free issues of _A_n_a_l_o_g and _A_s_i_m_o_v'_s were being handed out. The usual
movie buttons were also there. There must have been a sufficient
supply; there were still some on Monday.
Program Books
The Pocket Program was universally acclaimed as once of the
best ever. It was a 4-inch by 6-inch spiral-bound booklet
containing the complete schedule (with descriptions--something which
had been missing for the last three years), daily grids, convention
center and hotel maps, restaurant listings, and just about
everything else. (It did take a somewhat larger pocket than some
other "pocket programs," though.) The one thing missing (and handed
out separately) was the index by participant. As before, I had
pulled a copy off the Net before the convention (and in fact had
printed up a customized program for me of what I wanted to see, and
gave a copy to Mark so he could find me), but I still found the
Pocket Program useful. The Net copy wasn't posted until only
thirty-six hours before Mark and I were leaving, which meant we had
to scramble to print up customized versions. Suggestion to future
conventions: post the schedule at least two weeks before the
convention, because many people will go early to spend some vacation
time in the area. The schedule is firmed up by then, because
program participants have to know what their schedules are.
The Souvenir Book went back to its traditional format of essays
and information, with no fiction such as was included last year.
Green Room
The Green Room seemed well laid out, with sufficient coffee and
sodas. (I didn't spend much time there.) There were schedules
available and it was right across from Program Operations, where one
picked up the name cards for the panels. My major complaint again
would be with the participants, who showed a distressing tendency
_n_o_t to show up before the panels in the Green Room as requested,
making any pre-planning of introductions, topics, etc., impossible.
Dealers Room
As usual, the Dealers Room (a.k.a., the Hucksters Room) was
very large, and seemed to have more books than last year (though
it's hard to tell). However, I had made myself a promise not to buy
a ton of books which I would have to carry back and having bought a
few at used book stores before the convention, only bought two or
three books I had been seeking for a while.
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 4
One interesting side-note: NESFA was selling its Cordwainer
Smith collection, _T_h_e _R_e_d_i_s_c_o_v_e_r_y _o_f _M_a_n (edited by James Mann).
The rights to one of the stories in it had originally been sold to
Harlan Ellison for the (infamous) _L_a_s_t _D_a_n_g_e_r_o_u_s _V_i_s_i_o_n_s anthology.
When Ellison heard they were selling it, he claimed he owned the
rights to that story and apparently threatened to go over to the
table and punch the first NESFA person he saw there for stealing a
story they had no right to. What I heard later from NESFA was that
Ellison thought he had bought the rights in perpetuity, but had
actually bought them for a ten-year period, with an option to renew
for five more (which he didn't pick up), and that this was twenty
years ago. The net result of all this, however, was that everyone
who was at Ellison's panel rushed over to the dealers room and
bought a copy, and NESFA ended up selling out their entire at-the-
con stock and taking orders to ship a whole lot more.
Art Show
I didn't get to see very much of the art show. Had I realized
that the staff was not requiring that people check their bags, I
might have tried to fit in some short trips between panels, but I
was so used to having a visit to the art show take a minimum of ten
minutes just for checking and un-checking bags that I never even
tried. I did see a bit of it, especially the Hugo nominees exhibit.
A friend commended them on their computerized purchase procedure,
but wished that there was a way to pick up purchased artwork before
10 AM Monday, since her flight was not much after that. (There was
someone there a little bit earlier, but there was no scheduled time
to pick up artwork earlier.) Also, art show close-out was only an
hour before the Hugo ceremony, and given the lines (see below), that
meant people bidding on artwork had to sacrifice any chance of
getting a decent seat at the ceremony.
Programming
There were 492 program items listed (not counting readings and
autograph sessions). MagiCon had 420 program items, Chicon V had
520 program items, ConFiction 337, and Noreascon 3 833 (all not
counting films or autograph sessions). I have no idea how many
videos and films there were: due to family problems, the head of
media programming had to withdraw shortly before the convention and
the schedule was totally changed as the convention had to start from
scratch at that point. (John L. Flynn came through with what must
have been only hours notice with a series of lectures to go with the
"Dracula" film festival that was shown one day.) There were also 33
autograph sessions and 29 readings. Once again, there were a _l_o_t of
panels at this convention of interest to me, and I ended up with no
time for lunch (and occasionally no time for dinner!).
Given that it's impossible to see everything at a Worldcon, I
will cover just the programming I attended. However, Mark has
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 5
graciously agreed to write up some of the panels he attended, and
these are included as well (and labeled as his).
Panel: MMMMaaaaiiiinnnnssssttttrrrreeeeaaaammmm////SSSSlllliiiippppssssttttrrrreeeeaaaammmm
Thursday, 3:00 PM
Jonathan Lethem, Mark V. Ziesing
"'Mainstream' fiction hovering on our borders": Ziesing began
by saying that he thought the New Wave was slipstream; Lethem gave
only the example of Steve Ericson (_A_r_c _d'_X and others). Other
examples were Paul Auster (who wrote _T_h_e _M_u_s_i_c _o_f _C_h_a_n_c_e, the film
of which coincidentally we saw Monday after the convention ended),
Anthony Burgess (_A _C_l_o_c_k_w_o_r_k _O_r_a_n_g_e--though this is more into the
science fiction area--and others), Jonathan Carroll (_O_u_t_s_i_d_e _t_h_e _D_o_g
_M_u_s_e_u_m and others), Jim Dodge (whom I couldn't find in _B_o_o_k_s _i_n
_P_r_i_n_t), Thomas Palmer (who someone claimed wrote _D_r_e_a_m _S_c_i_e_n_c_e, but
I could find neither the author nor the title in _B_o_o_k_s _i_n _P_r_i_n_t),
Thomas Pynchon (_G_r_a_v_i_t_y'_s _R_a_i_n_b_o_w and others), Lewis Shiner
(_G_l_i_m_p_s_e_s and others), and Jonathan Lethem's own upcoming _G_u_n, _w_i_t_h
_O_c_c_a_s_i_o_n_a_l _M_u_s_i_c. Judith Merril claimed recently that slipstream
fiction wasn't really a new phenomenon, but that the sales potential
for slipstream books was low and so they never really made a splash.
In an attempt to define slipstream, one panelist said that it
is marked by the reader's difficulty in distinguishing fantasy from
dreams. (Having seen _T_h_e _M_u_s_i_c _o_f _C_h_a_n_c_e, I understand what he
meant.)
Lethem noted that in literature, fantasy had always been the
dominant mode, and that it was only recently that "realistic
fiction" became the mainstream. Borges and Kafka are examples of
fantastic authors who are accepted as mainstream (i.e.,
"legitimate") authors, but their work was described as mainly pre-
genre (whatever that means).
Another related category is non-science-fiction written by
science fiction authors for science fiction readers. Lucius
Shepard's Central American stories and Bradley Denton's _B_l_a_c_k_b_u_r_n
would probably fall into this category.
Slipstream was also characterized by Ziesing as being used by
"aging hippies and beat-up love puppies" as a "literary rather than
chemical way to alter their consciousness." It tends to produce
psychological discomfort.
The panelists cautioned that it was a mistake to think there is
a monolithic mainstream, about which the various genres cluster;
even the "mainstream" is fragmented. Unfortunately, at this point
the panel degenerated into the usual discussion of publishing and
marketing.
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 6
Panel: SSSSttttaaaatttteeee ooooffff tttthhhheeee SSSShhhhoooorrrrtttt SSSSttttoooorrrryyyy
Thursday, 4:00 PM
Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff, James Brunet, Scott Edelman, Rick Wilber
"How does this form fare in science fiction and fantasy
magazines and books, and in the rest of the literary world":
Edelman began by saying that in his opinion, short fiction is where
everything important happens first--it is the cutting edge. Other
panelists felt that this might be connected to the fact that short
fiction gives the author more immediate feedback or gratification.
While a novel could take a year or more to write, a short story can
be written in a much shorter length of time. So writers are willing
to make the investment in experimenting in the shorter forms. In
addition, there are more markets for short fiction now than there
were ten years ago. This does not mean it's easy to break into the
market, but it is easier than before.
Because it is true that short fiction is not as profitable as
novels, many people seem to feel that authors "graduate" from short
fiction to novels. (See the introduction to Karen Joy Fowler's
collection _A_r_t_i_f_i_c_i_a_l _T_h_i_n_g_s for a description of this phenomenon:
she says she prefers short fiction and even got a reputation as "the
person who wouldn't write a novel for Bantam.") Wilber also thought
that short stories were not only "a good place to get started,
but ... also a good place to be." And Harlan Ellison, one of the
most respected writers in the field, has never written a science
fiction novel (though he has written a couple of non-science-fiction
novels).
One problem with short fiction is that magazines have a
definite shelf life. Stories may be popular, but after their month
or two is up, they become impossible to find. While anthologies
have a longer lifetime, they are less predictable or reliable. As
Brunet put it, "The anthology is the hot date; the magazine is a
long-term relationship." It is true that inclusion in one of the
"Year's Best" anthologies will probably assure a story of being
available for at least a couple of years, but original anthologies
are trickier.
The panelists pointed out, however, that science fiction
magazines at least have a readership. Literary magazines stay alive
because of the pressures of academia: they provide a place to
"publish" instead of "perish" for professors, and they are pretty
much required reading for other professors. Science fiction
magazines, on the other hand, stay alive because people _w_a_n_t to read
them. The opinion was expressed that this might even explain some
of the hostility toward science fiction from academia: jealousy.
One recent phenomenon is the stand-alone novella from
publishers such as Bantam. Priced below the cost of a novel and
offering readers a chance to read a "book" without committing to a
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 7
600-page odyssey, they are also giving authors more market for
novellas, traditionally a hard form to place.
Above all, though, Wilbur says, if you want to break into the
short fiction market, "embrace rejection." In agreement, Brunet
said that the best experience he got for selling short fiction was
his experience dating in his early twenties.
Panel: IIIInnnnttttrrrroooodddduuuuccccttttiiiioooonnnn ttttoooo CCCCoooommmmppppuuuutttteeeerrrr NNNNeeeettttwwwwoooorrrrkkkkiiiinnnngggg
Thursday, 5:00 PM
Seth Breidbart, Daniel Dern, Tom Galloway,
Mark L. Olson, Martha Soukup (m)
"Discussion of the world of electronic mail and beyond--
CompuServe, GEnie, Prodigy, BIX, the WELL and the Internet": The
first item of business was asking what networks audience members
were on. All the networks seemed to be represented except Prodigy,
which got a bunch of loud boo's instead of hands raised. The room
was packed, mostly with people already networked, though there were
a few people who had not gotten connected and were hoping to get
some advice.
After a brief history of computer networking (with the note
that _S_F-_L_o_v_e_r_s _D_i_g_e_s_t was originally a secret because of the
restricted nature of the early Internet, and went public only in
January of 1984), discussion turned to the recent announcement that
some cable companies were going to start providing Internet
connections via cable (at a fairly high price compared to public
access services, though). The popularity of the Internet in general
was thought by some to be leading to "death by success," to which a
large number of people responded in chorus, "Imminent death of the
Net predicted...." (With every change or growth spurt, people have
been posting to the Net predicting that this would be the cause of
the final collapse. Yet like that pink rabbit, it keeps on going.
Or if you're older, like Timex, it keeps on ticking.)
Differences between commercial networks and the Internet were
touched on. The commercial culture is a very top-down culture with
rules and organization being dictated from above. The Internet is a
"cooperative anarchy"; everything is bottom-up. If you want a
connection, you just find someone already on it willing to provide
one, as opposed to having to contact a central organization.
The major problem--how to solve infoglut--was not addressed.
There are so many panels on computers and networking, one
wonders when conventions will start providing terminal rooms.
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 8
Panel: TTTTooooddddaaaayyyy IIIIssss TTTToooommmmoooorrrrrrrroooowwww''''ssss YYYYeeeesssstttteeeerrrrddddaaaayyyy
Thursday, 6:00 PM
Barbara Delaplace, John Hertz, Harry Turtledove (m)
"Likely errors in future historical fiction about our era":
The panel started by defining "today" as the period from 1945 to the
present. The most obvious errors, they said, would be simple
anachronisms: pot-smoking free love in 1951 or a Beatles concert in
1947. Authors writing about a historical period need to throw in
details like this to create verisimilitude--as Hertz said,
"Verisimilitude is very tricky stuff"--but it is very easy to get it
wrong. Suggesting a few details allows the reader to fill in the
rest, and authors aren't always careful about the details,
especially if they think their audience is unfamiliar with the
period.
Of course, unfamiliarity may not be the case. After all, there
is a flood of information available for the present. Byzantine
history (Turtledove's specialty) requires inference from the
documents surviving, but we are absolutely swimming in documents.
Even with some of them unreadable due to obsolete media (such as
music stored on eight-track tapes), there will be so much that it
will be impossible to avoid verifiable errors with only a finite
amount of research.
Another error is that people forget how quickly attitudes can
change. This is what Mark calls the "Happy Days" Syndrome: the show
took place in the 1950s, but everyone had the attitudes of the
1980s. This is also one reason that feminist Regency novels don't
work very well. (Hertz suggested that you think of a viewpoint as a
geographic thing.) It's easy to eat the food of people of another
period and wear their clothing, but it's hard to think their
thoughts and feel their feelings. Turtledove warns, however, that
you often have to tone down attitudes or the audience will be turned
off by them. For example, the attitude that blacks were sub-human
was very common in earlier centuries, yet having a "hero" who
espoused this attitude, however accurately, would not be acceptable
to modern audiences. Rest assured, though, that we will suffer the
same fate or, as Turtledove put it, "Whatever you think about X will
be considered absurd five hundred years from now," where X could be
religion, abortion, meat-eating, or any other subject. Yes, we
think we have proof that our beliefs are right, but then previous
generations also thought they had proof. Panelists also noted that
some facts need to be left out--they are too convenient and people
will think you have made them up.
One thing that Hertz felt characterizes our period as different
that might very well seem absurd in the future is that we are as
compulsively casual as previous cultures were formal. Whether the
pendulum will swing completely back is not clear, but he feels that
some return to formality will occur, and we will look absurd to
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 9
future readers.
On the other hand, novels written about their own period can
often skip important details that would be obvious to those of the
author's time, but completely lost on an audience a hundred years
later. As one panelist said, he could tell when reading a Jane
Austen that _s_o_m_e_t_h_i_n_g important was going on, but he didn't have the
knowledge of the period to figure out what. Writers writing obout
earlier historical periods have to give the reader enough to
understand what is happening. Georgette Heyer is supposedly good at
this.
Turtledove observed that writing about the past was dangerous
because "you have more excuse for making mistakes about the future
than about the past." Even so, some literary license is permitted
since "historians deal with facts, novelists deal with truth."
More basic questions raised were: Will anyone care about us?
Why do we do the strange things we do? What are the future
stereotypes of our age? These were not answered, but the last one
brought about the observation that an era of history is only noticed
after it is over. (As Kim Stanley Robinson noted in his lecture on
Postmodernism people didn't sit around in Europe and say, "Well,
last year was the Dark Ages, but now is the Renaissance.") Someone
compared this to the cloud in Poul Anderson's _B_r_a_i_n _W_a_v_e: you only
realize it exists once you're out of it.
PPPPaaaarrrrttttiiiieeeessss
Thursday, 10:00 PM
We returned from dinner at the Angkor Wat too late for the
opening ceremonies, so I settled for dropping in to a couple of
parties, the MagiCon Thank You Party (where I won a water bottle in
their free give-a-ways), and the Boston in '01 Party. At the latter
I discussed the various bids for 1998, none of which fills me with
confidence. I have heard a rumor that Atlanta might throw its hat
into the ring for 1998 (since their 1995 convention is the NASFiC
rather than the Worldcon, they can do this). By the way, voters
should realize that if Boston wins in 1998, it is ineligible in
2001.
I didn't really run into people I was looking for at the
parties, but I did see several people other times of day: Lan at
registration, Mike Ward by the elevators, and so on. This was good,
because I was going to be immersing myself in panels for the next
few days and wouldn't have much chance to meet people unless they
were going to the same panels.
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 10
Panel: SSSShhhhoooouuuulllldddd SSSSFFFF////FFFF SSSSttttrrrriiiivvvveeee ffffoooorrrr LLLLiiiitttteeeerrrraaaarrrryyyy RRRReeeessssppppeeeeccccttttaaaabbbbiiiilllliiiittttyyyy
Friday, 10:00 AM
Gregory Benford, David G. Hartwell, Ron Montana (m)
"A debate over whether or not mainstream literary
respectability is a desirable goal": Benford began by saying that
he was working under a disadvantage, because English was not his
first language--he's from southern Alabama. But he worked on
getting rid of his accent because he realized at age 14 that people
deduct twenty points from someone's IQ if they hear a southern
accent.
The panelists felt that one approach to literary respectability
was that of Deena Brown: "Let's get science fiction back in the
gutter where it belongs." That seems to be the literary
establishment's view: a proposal submitted to the National Science
Foundation and the National Endowment of the Arts to use science
fiction to teach science was rated high by the NSF and low by the
NEA. But all is not lost, Hartwell reassured us: "Science fiction
has escalated from the respectability of pornography to the
respectability of the average Western." However, Hartwell, who
teaches a science fiction course at Harvard during the summer, was
turned down when he offered to teach one during the regular school
year. "Hell would freeze over before Harvard would allow science
fiction to be taught during the regular school year," he said he was
told (though perhaps not exactly in those words).
Benford doesn't think respectability is worth very much,
because it is too easy to compromise one's art to gain
respectability, and quoted Dylan as having said, "To live outside
the law, you must be honest." (That's Bob Dylan, not Dylan Thomas.)
For one thing, he thought much of the cynicism in today's mainstream
was un-earned. People point to today's crises, such as AIDS, as the
reason for this cynicism, but he reminded the audience that the 1919
influenza epidemic was much worse.
I asked if fantasy was more acceptable than science fiction to
the literary establishment and Hartwell said that was certainly
true. (This meshes with Lethem's comment yesterday on the
"Slipstream" panel--literature was mostly fantastic for a long
time.)
Speaking of the limitations of writing science fiction,
especially strictly accurate science fiction, Benford felt that a
genre flourishes because of its restraints. He did allow authors to
make _o_n_e change to current science if they had to, but he himself
tries to avoid that. He is, for example, one of the few science
fiction authors who won't use faster-than-light travel.
From the audience, Maia Cowan pointed out that it was somewhat
futile to try to write books that would have respectability: books
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 11
written to be literary classics aren't, and books written for a
quick buck have outlasted them. Arthur Conan Doyle is the perfect
example of this: he assumed his fame would rest on his historical
novels (quick, can you name even one of them?), while his Sherlock
Holmes (and Edward Challenger) stories were written to pay the
bills. And tastes in literature change. James Fenimore Cooper's
works used to be considered classics; today no one reads them
(except possibly to make a movie of them--and then they make a lot
of changes).
Talking about best-sellers, Hartwell said that he loved Michael
Crichton's _C_o_n_g_o, but Benford complained that Crichton, Robin Cook,
and Stephen King use "the sizzle of science" to preach that science
is bad for you.
Someone asked whether anyone would ever win a Nobel Prize for
science fiction, and were told that it had already happened (Harry
Martinson for _A_n_i_a_r_a). Other possibilities for the future are
Stanislaw Lem and whichever Strugatsky brother is still alive
(Arkady or Boris). In other countries, science fiction is respected
more in general.
Benford said he wasn't sure what "literature" was: "If
literature merely means pretty sentences, count me out." (Someone
noted that Ernest Hemingway is considered literature, and as the
"Grandfather of Minimalism" was _n_o_t a purveyor of pretty sentences.)
For the scientifically-inclined in the audience, Benford said that
one problem is that "the literary world is dominated by the inertial
term."
In a side note, Benford said that one reason that John
W. Campbell liked dictatorships so much in stories submitted to him
was that that was how he ran his magazine. (By the way, Benford has
a new book out, _C_h_i_l_l_e_r, written under the pseudonym of Sterling
Blake. I believe it's being marketed as a techno-thriller.)
Lecture: PPPPoooossssttttmmmmooooddddeeeerrrrnnnniiiissssmmmm aaaannnndddd SSSSFFFF
Friday, 11:00 AM
Kim Stanley Robinson
Well, coming out of this I felt that I finally understood what
Postmodernism was.
Robinson began by saying that all the adjectives being used to
talk about Postmodernism today used to be used to talk about science
fiction, so it was natural that there should seem to be a
connection. But Postmodernism is a historical period, not a style.
Now is different than the Modernist period, and so needs a new name.
(Robinson described this whole process as "periodization," and noted
that people did not suddenly say, "It's not the Dark Ages anymore;
it's the Renaissance." Only later did these labels get applied.) A
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 12
period corresponds to a structure for feeling. But even within a
period there are "residual" and "emergent" aspects. For one thing,
he said, this allows people to dispose of anomalies easily.
Postmodernism, as a period, follows Modernism. Modernism, in
turn, followed Romanticism, which was represented by Realism.
Various aspects of Modernism included Impressionism, stream of
consciousness, existentialism, and the architecture of Frank Lloyd
Wright. This is not to say everyone was Modern; rural areas were in
most cases pre-Modern (still feudal in many ways). But in the arts
the basic "structure of feeling" or zeitgeist was alienation.
People found themselves between the modern city and the rural area,
and not really _o_f either. Modernism was also characterized by a
functioning avant garde and a concern with history.
The change "point" between Modernism and Postmodernism was the
period from 1939 to 1969. This was the end of the old world order,
brought about partly by World War II, and partly by the end of
colonialism, or as Jean Paul Sartre put it, "All the natives of the
world proclaimed that they were people." Fragmentation is the basic
"structure of feeling" or zeitgeist in Postmodernism. There is a
loss of purpose or of self. Robinson later said that to deal with
this loss, we have a nostalgia for tribal cultures because tribalism
is an attempt to create social groups we can recognize and deal
with.
We are not fully modernized, Robinson said. (I might dispute
this, having seen rural farms in China. Actually, Robinson did
later qualify this by saying there were still unmodernized areas.
But communication has changed a lot of that. When we were trekking
in northern Thailand a couple of years ago, our guide turned out to
be a Bon Jovi fan and to play in a heavy metal group.) Our
architecture is learning from Las Vegas. Robinson pointed to the
Marriott near the convention center that looks like a 1950s jukebox.
(This was also mentioned in the "Future and Movies" panel.)
Architecture is now historical jumbles or melanges. I find this
amusing as there is a painting which shows a city with just such a
jumble of styles, and it is titled "The Architect's Nightmare."
Architecture now shows a sense of humor: in Atlanta there is a ten-
story Gothic castle as the base of a seventy-story skyscraper, which
is in turn topped with a cupola.
Pop art (such as Andy Warhol's work) is another aspect of
Postmodernism. In fact, there is no big split between high art and
popular art. Movies have glossy production values, even when
portraying Depression dives in _T_h_e _S_t_i_n_g (which Robinson said looked
like Hollywood fern bars) or the life of migrant farm workers in _O_f
_M_i_c_e _a_n_d _M_e_n. New art forms arise. Fiona Jones in Boston hired
people to go around and make other people happy as an art form. (It
ended when the bank clerks she hired started giving money out to
customers to make them happy!)
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 13
This lack of division between high art and popular art means
that science fiction is the equal of any other art; there is no
hierarchy any more. But this lack of division also means that to a
Postmodernist, _R_e_a_d_e_r_s _D_i_g_e_s_t joke columns are equal to James Joyce.
And much of the academic study of Postmodernism is horrendous
writing and what's more, it considers itself art just as much as
what it is discussing. (Robinson said that just about the only
person worth reading on this topic was Frederick Jameson
[_P_o_s_t_m_o_d_e_r_n_i_s_m, _o_r, _t_h_e _C_u_l_t_u_r_a_l _L_o_g_i_c _o_f _L_a_t_e _C_a_p_i_t_a_l_i_s_m], though
he was tough going.) What's more, the criticism tends to be
political, even if Postmodernism itself isn't. There is also no
avant garde, because it's impossible to shock the bourgeoisie.
Mapplethorne is not avant garde so much as nostalgia for the avant
garde.
Now, consider science fiction in the 1970s. It had shallow
characters, a distortion of time and space, and so on. In fact, it
looked like an emergent Postmodern art form, especially since art
forms can go through periods vary quickly to catch up with the
prevailing feeling. Elvis was Romanticist/Realist, the Beatles were
Modernist, and Madonna is Postmodernist. In science fiction, John
W. Campbell pushed realism, the New Wave pushed Modernism (with John
Brunner's _S_t_a_n_d _o_n _Z_a_n_z_i_b_a_r modeled after John Dos Passos and Brian
Aldiss's _B_a_r_e_f_o_o_t _i_n _t_h_e _H_e_a_d modeled after James Joyce), and now we
have Postmodernism. From the outside science fiction looked like an
emergent form; from inside, it appeared to be an accelerated form.
In science fiction art we have gone from the 1950s and Richard
Powers's Modernist art to Realist art. Or is it just Postmodern
glossy? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Science fiction is an intermediate form between high and low
art. (The nostalgia for the science fiction ghetto is really
residual.) One reason that Postmodernism is often confused with
science fiction is that "Postmodernism" literally means "after the
now." "After the now" _i_s science fiction, but in this case (as in
many others) a literal translation of the component parts of a word
gives an incorrect meaning.
But science fiction is really anti-Postmodernism.
Postmodernism says that we are beyond historical styles because
history has stopped--in other words, it takes an ahistorical view of
the world. It is First-World-oriented (as was noted earlier). But
science fiction has a sense of history proceeding into the future,
and is _n_o_t apolitical.
Science fiction is interested in utopianism. As Robinson said,
"The future is going to be different depending on what we do," a
theme I later stressed in the panel "Turning the Wheels of If."
(And a theme of Robinson's work in general as well.) "The world is
a braided science fiction novel," he added, "that we're all co-
authoring right now."
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 14
The reading protocols of science fiction have to be explained
to Postmodernists. It may appear to be part of the "movement," but
appearances are deceiving.
Although cyberpunk claims to be an emergent form, Robinson
said, we cannot predict emergent forms; they can only be recognized
in hindsight, the same as historical periods.
(End of Part 1)