@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/15/93 -- Vol. 12, No. 16
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. I was talking about the budget. One of the things that was cut
was a $20 billion plan to create half a million jobs. Think about
how many jobs _h_a_l_f _a _m_i_l_l_i_o_n is! And it would cost us only about
twenty stealth bombers. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? _H_a_l_f _a
_m_i_l_l_i_o_n _j_o_b_s! Sounds like a good deal until you do the division.
It costs $40,000 for each job that will be created. What do you
figure these jobs pay? Give me $40,000 and I will hire someone to
come to my house and throw cards into a hat for a year and pay him
$30,000. Not a bad salary for card-tossing. I mean, what's the
big trick of creating a job if you have $40,000 to do it with?
That's your salary right there.
THE MT VOID Page 2
But the deficit is different. Everybody agrees that cutting the
deficit is necessary and important. Everybody agrees that forty-
nine of the states are wasting tax dollars on frivolous uses such
as the Institute for Historical Ninja Turtles Studies. Of course,
his or her own state--whichever one that might be--is building the
rocket engines that will push the Earth out of the path of the
comet next year (Ooops. That hasn't been announced yet. That's
off the record) if we can just get the funding away from the other
forty-nine states, each of whom have their own Ninja Turtles
Studies project. Every Congresscritter seems convinced his or her
state is the only state capable of spending money wisely. So in
the old days everybody spent money on credit. The way they showed
fiscal responsibility was to cut funding for science. Now there is
less money to go around so the government is cutting where it can,
like the super-collider. That is the great thing about democracy:
the people can choose to spend more money on Madonna or the Miami
Dolphins or MTV than they spend on mathematics. But it's like
choosing to eat nothing but potato chips and chocolate cake.
Mark Leeper
MT 3D-441 908-957-5619
leeper@mtgzfs3.att.com
A thinker (and what is an artist if not a triple thinker?)
should have neither religion nor fatherland nor even any
social convictions.
-- Gustave Flaubert
ConFrancisco 1993
Con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1993 Evelyn C. Leeper
(Part 2 of 5)
Panel: AAAAhhhhooooyyyy,,,, HHHHaaaavvvveeee YYYYoooouuuu SSSSeeeeeeeennnn tttthhhheeee GGGGrrrreeeeaaaatttt WWWWhhhhiiiitttteeee AAAArrrrcccchhhheeeettttyyyyppppeeee????
Friday, 12 noon
Mary J. Caraker, Howard Frank, Katharine Kerr (m),
Mike Resnick, Carol Severance
"What are they? Uses and abuses? Are there 'styles' in
archetypes over the years?": The panel described archetypes as
"ripping off mythological themes," as well as Christ figures and
primitive legends. Most science fiction and fantasy is dominated by
white European cultures and archetypes, though Severance uses
Pacific Islanders and their archetypes. (Severance did note that
she realizes that "Pacific Islanders" is a very broad term,
encompassing many different cultures.) Severance felt that using
different cultures made the fiction more interesting, because "every
culture carries the rhythm of the physical setting that it's in."
She mentioned in passing the large number of words for snow in Inuit
languages, but also said that every Pacific Island language had a
word meaning "death by falling cocoanut." Caraker is using the
Kalevala (Finnish)--European, but not really over-used.
The panelists tried to distinguish between stereotype and
archetype by saying the an archetype is a function within a pattern
of story (e.g., quest stories have a hero). As Maia Cowan noted,
archetypes don't have to be people; they can be the quest itself,
the journey, the generational ship, the wild place, or the clean
village. (Someone noted that Earth _i_s a generational ship, and
someone else observed only poor villages were clean, because only
rich villages would have garbage.) Olaf Stapledon was an author
with a lot of archetypes and no characters whatsoever.
One danger in talking about archetypes is that people will find
things in writing that was never (consciously) intended by the
author.
H. Rider Haggard was an author cited whose work was almost
entirely archetypal. But Frank noted that Haggard's best-known work
was not his best, and that Haggard had the utmost respect for black
culture in Africa, contrary to many people's impressions. Haggard
also has a Victorian view of women but not, Frank claimed, a
negative one. (Frank recommended _N_a_d_a _t_h_e _L_i_l_y and _E_r_i_c _B_r_i_g_h_t_e_y_e_s
as Haggard's best. _S_h_e was written in six weeks on a bet.)
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 2
Doyle used archetypes: the wise old storyteller in Watson (and
others). In fact, the wise old storyteller is a very popular
archetype among authors, undoubtedly because they _a_r_e storytellers.
Wells has his wise old professor (Cavor). Romulus and Remus are the
feral children, which we see later in Rudyard Kipling's Mowgli and
Edgar Rice Burroughs's Tarzan. But now these characters are usually
given some flaw, usually for comic effect. Even so, science fiction
still has noble characters, according to Frank, while most
literature doesn't. Kerr felt that women authors often play against
archetype as well as against stereotype in their female characters.
We now have the wise and compassionate alien and the creation
that destroys its creator. They may seem new, but they really go
back to the angel and the golem. There's also the master navigator,
which shows up with Maoris as space-farers. And Heinlein's
"competent man" is another archetype.
Someone asked if archetypes are what prevents science fiction
from becoming a literary artform, or at least accepted as
literature. This seems unlikely; there is much archetypal
literature that is accepted as literature.
Anti-heroes are also found in science fiction: Alfred Bester's
_D_e_m_o_l_i_s_h_e_d _M_a_n and _T_h_e _S_t_a_r_s _M_y _D_e_s_t_i_n_a_t_i_o_n, Clifford Simak's _C_i_t_y,
and David Lindsay's _V_o_y_a_g_e _t_o _A_r_c_t_u_r_u_s.
The prophet as archetype is now often replaced by the author
himself or herself, as when someone writes an "if this goes on?"
tale. This observation led someone to wonder if a Calvinist (or
other believer in predestination) could accept a cautionary tale.
On the other hand, what are all the warnings of damnation in the
Bible if not cautionary tales?
Apropos of not much else, someone noted that in 1966 a survey
of science fiction authors was taken and only Robert Heinlein and
Robert Silverberg were making more than $10,000 a year from their
science fiction writing. (Isaac Asimov was making more, but mostly
from his science writing.) Things have improved; a recent survey
shows several authors (unnamed) making more than $50,000 a year from
their science fiction writing.
Panel: UUUUssssiiiinnnngggg LLLLiiiitttteeeerrrraaaarrrryyyy TTTTeeeecccchhhhnnnniiiiqqqquuuueeeessss iiiinnnn SSSSFFFF////FFFF
Friday, 1:00 PM
Nicholas A. DiChario, Jean Mark Gawron,
Eileen Gunn (m), Michael Kandel
"Is there room for stream of consciousness, self-
referentiality, fractured time schemes and so on in SF?": The short
answer seems to be yes, but focus on the task and choose the
technique to fit rather than vice versa (according to Kandel,
anyway). But it is the story-telling that is important, not the
artsy-fartsy stuff.
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 3
The panelists agreed that writers pick up techniques by reading
other writers and that therefore it is probably inevitable that
these techniques will appear in science fiction. And some writers
are more naturally stylists than others. The example given was that
Mike Resnick is a storyteller and Lucius Shepard is a stylist.
How well do techniques translate from one language to another?
This was a question perhaps better suited for the "Language" panel
later, but Kandel said that there were some techniques that
translated easily and others that were very difficult. (See the
"Language" panel later for more on this.)
Regarding stylistic tricks, Kandel said that often one should
"take out the goop" to improve things. This is true in the
mainstream as well as in science fiction, since the dichotomy
between the two implied in this panel's title doesn't really exist.
Kandel also warned against "expository lumps," which seem inherent
in science fiction, but can be handled well. As an example of an
author who could handle these "lumps," Kandel mentioned James
Schmitz. Gunn said that you should "cut out the boring, tedious
stuff and leave only what interests you."
People asked about specific techniques. Regarding
foreshadowing, one panelist said that it has to come from the text,
not be applied to it like lipstick. However, a beginning writer may
have to do this consciously for a while before it becomes an
automatic process.
In answer to my question, DiChario said that he had chosen the
diary format for "The Winterberry" as the best way to show the main
character's mental state and also to skip large chunks of time. I
didn't ask, but it seems obvious that this technique was inspired by
Daniel Keyes's _F_l_o_w_e_r_s _f_o_r _A_l_g_e_r_n_o_n.
Panel: GGGGeeeennnnddddeeeerrrr BBBBeeeennnnddddiiiinnnngggg:::: WWWWhhhhaaaatttt''''ssss GGGGoooooooodddd
Friday, 2:00 PM
Michael Blumlein, Suzy McKee Charnas, Jeanne Gomoll (m)
"Exploration of gender and roles isn't as popular in science
fiction as it used to be. Are the issues too imponderable or have
we explored this area thoroughly?": Blumlein started out by
reminding us that the major debate about gender roles is still
nature versus nurture. One of the best examples using the nurture
theory in recent books is Sheri Tepper's _S_i_d_e_s_h_o_w, in which the one
of the two (hermaphroditic) halves of a set of joined twins is
raised as a boy and one is raised as a girl.
Charnas noted that women can fill the spectrum of behavior, but
that most fiction doesn't provide enough templates for this.
However, if one writes about a society composed only of women, one
finds that there is no problem in writing about a _c_o_m_p_l_e_t_e society.
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 4
One doesn't find parts that women can't fit. (One assumes the same
would be true from a men-only society, assuming some form of
artificial reproduction. In fact, someone said that Lois McMaster
Bujold did this with _E_t_h_a_n _o_f _A_t_h_o_s.)
One function of gender roles is to provide people with an
anchor of stability. Most people are uncomfortable in free-floating
masses of people (according to Charnas) and so groups form. (This
hearkens back to Robinson's comments about tribalism in his
Postmodernism lecture.) Charnas gave Nicola Griffith's _A_m_m_o_n_i_t_e as
a good example of this group dynamic.
The discussion drifted into "gender dysphoria," or the
psychological condition of feeling that your psychological sex
doesn't match your physiological sex. (Forgive me if I am
expressing this poorly; I do not have an M.D.) Someone said that,
while transsexual surgery used to be considered a solution to this,
such surgery is becoming less popular, though many people are taking
the necessary hormones and living as the "other" sex. One suggested
reason for this is that the easier of the two surgeries is male-to-
female, but being a female in society today results in a loss of
power, and people aren't ready to do that permanently. (Though I
would think living as a female would have the same effect.) With
this, as with a lot of the discussion, a lot of generalizations were
thrown around.
Someone pointed out that even if someone did change their sex
later in life (such as happened in Virginia Woolf's _O_r_l_a_n_d_o), they
would still have experienced the first part of their life as their
original sex. In the case of Orlando, he had gone through
adolescence as a boy, and so did not have the same life experiences
as someone who went through adolescence as a girl, even after he
changed into a woman. (The panelists felt that the movie left a lot
out that the book had.)
Regarding gender roles, someone observed that society makes
rules because the rules _a_r_e_n'_t fixed within us--if they were, we
wouldn't have to make artificial ones. Someone else cited _T_h_e
_R_a_i_n_b_o_w _M_a_n by M. J. Engh, in which women were _d_e_f_i_n_e_d as people who
could give birth. So a "woman" who had some physiological problem
which would prevent her from giving birth would not be considered a
woman by that society.
One belief expressed was that there is a lot of emphasis placed
on the societal pressures put on girls and woman, and less placed on
the corresponding pressures on boys and men. At least one panelist
said that we pretend that we can "skip the angry part" of problem-
solving, but that is not true; we need to confront the pain.
There was some book-flogging at the beginning of this panel.
Blumlein, who has an M. D., has written _T_h_e _M_o_v_e_m_e_n_t _o_f _M_o_u_n_t_a_i_n_s
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 5
and _T_h_e _B_r_a_i_n_s _o_f _R_a_t_s, and has a new book (called _X, _Y) coming out
soon from Dell which will deal with a gay man who wakes up one day
as a woman.
[Note: When discussing this subject, one trips all over the
pronouns of the English language. If one is discussing someone who
is in transition from one sex to the other (or was one and is now
the other), pick either "he" or "she" and stick with it. "He/she"
may work in written language as a replacement for "He or she," but
in spoken language "he-she" is considered as offensive as any number
of racial or ethnic epithets which I will not list here. This is
undoubtedly because this grammatical construction has been picked up
by the religious right and used by them in an extremely negative and
condescending fashion. So now you know.]
Panel: CCCCoooommmmppppuuuutttteeeerrrrssss aaaannnndddd CCCCllllaaaassssssss
Friday, 4:00 PM
Lisa Mason, Tim May, Althea McMurrian,
Jack Nimersheim, Richard Weiss (m)
"In an increasingly technology driven future, will the computer
illiterates be the next underclass?": The discussion centered more
on whether the current underclass would remain that way because they
were denied access to computers than whether the "computer
illiterate" of any class would become the new underclass.
Interestingly, all the panelists were in the computer field, meaning
that there was no "voice of the opposition," or in this case, no
input from the people who do _n_o_t use computers.
One feeling about computers and networking that most people
seemed to agree with was that on a one-to-one basis it was a great
equalizer, but overall it can be a stratifier. One question asked
was, if the problem is exacerbated by the fact that upper-class
people have more access to computers than lower-class people, does
this mean that upper-class parents should stop getting their
children the computers and other advantages they can afford?
Some people felt that the problem was not computer literacy or
illiteracy, but literacy in general, and that was far more
accessible to everyone.
On a more positive note, someone said that even the lower
classes have Nintendo, which is a computer, so it is not the case
that they are completely cut off from technology.
While the discussion was interesting, I don't think any of the
panel (or the audience, most likely) had any definite knowledge on
the topic. There was a lot of anecdotal evidence ("I've seen
discrimination in computers" "I haven't"), but no real basis for
coming to conclusions.
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 6
Panel: NNNNeeeemmmmaaaa PPPPrrrroooobbbblllleeeemmmmaaaa
Friday, 5:00 PM
Lynn D. Maners (m), Larry Roeder
"The Worldcon is not in the former Yugoslavia this year, but
many fans still live there. Who are they, and what's happened to
them?": Well, the good news is that as far as Maners knows, none of
the well-known Yugoslav fans have been killed in the war there.
Other than that, information is sketchy. The two major science
fiction magazines, _A_l_e_f and _S_i_r_i_u_s, have folded. The clubs still
meet--since none ever got any cultural funding anyway (through the
Yugoslav equivalent of the National Endowment for the Arts), the
break-up didn't disrupt that aspect of their organizations. (Of
course, the runaway inflation in many of the republics must be
damaging in general.)
Maners thought Slovenia was the only one of the republics to
have turned into a democracy; the others are still dictatorships of
one form or another. Apropos of this, I am reading Rebecca West's
_B_l_a_c_k _L_a_m_b _a_n_d _G_r_e_y _F_a_l_c_o_n, her description of her travels through
Yugoslavia in 1937 (complete with large chunks of history--those
"expository lumps" that Kandel warns against in fiction writing, but
which are marvelous in non-fiction). In her prologue, she says,
"English persons, therefore, of humanitarian and reformist
disposition constantly went out to the Balkan peninsula to see who
was in fact ill-treating whom, and, being by the very nature of
their perfectionist faith unable to accept the horrid hypothesis
that everybody was ill-treating everybody else, came back with a pet
Balkan people established in their hearts as suffering and innocent,
eternally the massacree and never the massacrer. The same sort of
person ... often set up on the hearth [their pet people as
resembling] Sir Joshua Reynolds's picture of the infant Samuel.
But ... to hear Balkan-fanciers talk about each other's Infant
Samuel was to think of some painter not at all like Sir Joshua
Reynolds, say Hieronymous Bosch." But I digress.
There was some discussion of Yugoslav science fiction, where
Maners said that it tended towards the philosophical rather than
towards the more hardware-oriented versions. This he attributed to
the fact that the country was not a major technological power, and
he says this tendency is found in the science fiction of most
smaller countries. In addition to being less technological, it is
often less optimistic. It's easy for a citizen of a super-power to
be optimistic about the future; it's more difficult for someone in a
less powerful country. For one thing, they may feel that much of
their future is in the hands of the super-power, who may decide to
take action against them, or at any rate, ignore their welfare when
making decisions.
Maners gave very complete instructions on how fans can donate
books to the United States Information Agency libraries abroad
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 7
(which is a sort of cultural exchange organization--_n_o_t part of the
Diplomatic Corps). Let me know if you want them.
Towards the end Larry Roeder came in and added a darker tone to
the proceedings. He said that he expects there to be a lot more war
in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, particularly since we have taken
away the ability of the Bosnian Muslims to defend themselves.
Ethnicity, he says, is _t_h_e issue of the next decade, not just in the
Balkans, but everywhere. Or, as D. Keith Mano said, "If Wilsonian
self-determination were applied strictly to Yugoslavia there would
be no kingdom larger than Greenwich Village. Yugoslavia isn't a
nation: it's some form of ethnic and political super-collider."
(_N_a_t_i_o_n_a_l _R_e_v_i_e_w, June 30, 1989) The current plan to divide up
Bosnia-Hercegovina certainly seems headed in that direction.
However, Americans are not terribly unpopular (a delightful change).
In fact, we are loved in Albania. Roeder claimed that this was
because Nixon was related to King Zog, though he didn't say how.
[Thanks to Mark for this last paragraph's worth; I had to leave
early because I was on a 6 PM panel.]
(This panel was very sparsely attended--about thirteen people.
Whether this means fans are apathetic, or just not interested in the
specific case of _f_a_n_d_o_m in the Balkans, I don't know.)
Panel: TTTTuuuurrrrnnnniiiinnnngggg tttthhhheeee WWWWhhhheeeeeeeellllssss ooooffff IIIIffff
Friday, 6:00 PM
Charles K. Bradley, John L. Flynn, Evelyn Leeper (m),
Brad Linaweaver, Paul J. McAuley
[Much thanks to Mark for taking copious notes during this
panel, as I can't be on a panel and take notes at the same time.]
"A discussion of likely change points for alternate realities,
universes and histories": Although usually the panelists for a topic
are authors who have written about that topic (and that was true
here of Flynn, Linaweaver, and McAuley), Bradley was on the panel
for a more unusual reason: he uses alternate history as a way to
teach students regular history (though he did admit that sometimes
he had to make sure they weren't getting confused about what was
real and what was imaginary!).
I started by asking the panelists to pick one change point they
would like to see dealt with, with the caveat that it _n_o_t be
European or North American, and especially not the American Civil
War or World War II. McAuley thought that something involving
Chinese expansionism might be good, although the feeling was that
the Chinese philosophy did not lend itself to exploration; the
Chinese had more of a feeling that other people should come to them.
I suggested that if this came out of Confucianism, then a timeline
without Confucius might have some interesting results. (Someone
later suggested that the Chinese stopped exploring because they saw
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 8
no monetary benefit from continuing.) Flynn said the one alternate
history story he had written ("Paradox Lost") assumed that the
Library at Alexandria hadn't been burnt and that the Egyptians
conquered the world. I pointed out that what Mark was always
reminding people was that the amount of time since the fall of the
Egyptian empire was shorter than the time the empire existed (or as
Mark says, "We are in the umbra of the Egyptian empire").
Linaweaver said he had just written "The Bison Riders" in which the
Aztecs are not defeated by the Spanish, but instead become high-tech
and expand into North America. (Strictly speaking, this is still a
North American change point, but not a Eurocentric one.)
Bradley thought that something interesting could be done with
General William Walker, who tried to seize Baja California and
Sonora in 1853. He failed, but set himself up as president of
Nicaragua in 1856, but was expelled in 1857. In 1860, he invaded in
Honduras, where his luck ran out: he was captured, court-martialed,
and shot. Even today, he is hated by many factions in Central
America. Another suggestion Bradley had was what if we had
supported Ho Chi Minh, though again that is too close to an over-
used change-point. My personal favorite (having recently read about
prehistoric animal migrations) is what if the Bering land bridge had
not existed? Not only would the Americas have been unpopulated when
the Europeans (or Asians, or Africans) arrived, but the animal life
of the Americas, and of Europe/Asia/Africa would have been vastly
different. For example, as someone noted, horses and camels were
New World animals which migrated _b_a_c_k to the Old World and then died
out in the New World. Imagine a Europe/Asia/Africa without horses
or camels or donkeys. Other ideas for change-points batted around
through the hour included what if Kaiser Wilhelm's father had lived
longer, what if the Roanoke Colony had never existed, what if
Carthage hadn't been defeated by Rome, what if Peter the Great
hadn't turned Russia towards the West instead of remaining Eastern
and what if Huey Long had been elected President (Virginia Dabney
had this happen in a 1936 story which also assumed the South won the
Civil War, and Barry Malzberg did this last year in "Kingfish").
Bradley noted that there are still people who believe that Roosevelt
had Long killed, leading to a brief digression into conspiracy
theories and secret histories, with Linaweaver suggesting that maybe
Roosevelt also flew the lead plane at Pearl Harbor.
There was some subsidiary discussion about the Aztecs.
Political correctness these days blames the Spanish for conquering
them, but the fact is that the Spanish had a lot of help from the
Aztecs' neighbors, who were tired of being captured for human
sacrifices. Linaweaver claims the Aztecs were vicious fascists.
(Note that he speaks from a libertarian perspective, though I
suspect he's right in any case.)
I asked the panelists' views on the "tide of history" versus
"great man" theories, noting that the former was in some sense the
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 9
Marxist view and the latter the capitalist view, leading the former
to be somewhat in disrepute these days. I placed myself somewhat in
the middle: some things happen because of a unique individual, but
there is also truth to Robert Heinlein's "When it's time to
railroad, you railroad." McAuley wondered if Marxism itself would
have gotten off the ground without Marx to write _D_a_s _K_a_p_i_t_a_l. Since
it was based on technological acceleration, would Marxism have
arisen if we never got beyond water power? Flynn agreed that the
"great man" theory seems the most likely to be true. Linaweaver
agreed with me that a mix is the most reasonable guess. He
suggested that without Hitler, there probably would have been a
World War II, but it probably would have been very different, and
the Holocaust would almost definitely have been greatly reduced. He
noted that Communism had been based on the work of many people, but
National Socialism was entirely Hitler's concept. Other "great men"
he listed were Einstein and Tesla. When I suggested that if
Einstein hadn't discovered relativity, someone else would have, Fred
Adams from the audience said that was true--that relativity was in
the air. I gave the further example of Newton and Leibnitz
discovering calculus independently and almost simultaneously.
(Christopher Ambler said this sort of simultaneity happens all the
time.) Bradley was also middle-of-the-road, giving one example of
the "great man" theory the idea that without a Lincoln, the United
States would not have survived intact.
Someone commented that the rise of chaos theory has led to
"fast" alternate histories, in which change occurs much more rapidly
than it did before. It used to be that even after fifty years,
things looked much the same as in our timeline, but now things
become unrecognizable in a short time. This, of course, makes it
more difficult for the reader to connect with the story.
At Flynn's suggestion, I asked the panelists why they thought
there was such a fascination, especially now, with alternate
histories. Flynn suggested it was wish fulfillment. (Bradley noted
that alternate histories strike a basic cord in the human psyche; he
is descended from Aaron Burr and might have been king.) Ambler
disagreed, saying that we may be interested in some of these
alternate histories, but we don't necessarily wish for them.
Regarding this, I noted that there are two categories of alternate
history: the pessimistic (things could have been better) and the
optimistic (things could have been worse). The French seem to like
alternate histories almost as much as the English-speaking world,
yet their alternate histories tend to be more pessimistic (according
to Mark Keller). In particular, they focus on how much better things
would be if everyone spoke French. Linaweaver thought that the
British, on the other hand, portrayed more dystopias than we did,
partly because we are still an empire.
Someone said that most alternate histories focused on people;
what about some that focused on diseases, natural disasters, and
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 10
other events? I noted there have been several based on variations
to the spread of the Black Plague (especially the stories in Robert
Silverberg's "Gate of Time" anthologies), but other ideas included
what if Hurricane Andrew hadn't hit (too soon to show radical
change, in my opinion), what if the storm hadn't delayed the Spanish
Armada (done by Joseph Edgar Chamberlin as an academic study in
1908), and what if space aliens had invaded us? (For many of these
and other ideas, Linaweaver said that work was being done on them,
and that Harry Turtledove would be writing them all.) I noted that
regarding plagues, 90% of the deaths in the New World after the
Spanish arrived were from disease, not warfare.
We cautioned was that changes had to be somewhat reasonable, a
constraint that many authors don't seem to recognize. Many people
look at what might have happened if the South had won the Civil War
or Germany won World War II, but close examination shows usually
there is no way for their scenario to have happened. Prospective
authors should watch James Burke's television series _C_o_n_n_e_c_t_i_o_n_s to
get an idea of causality in history.
I also observed that in alternate histories changing the past
changes the future, and maybe this was popular because we want to
believe that changing the present changes the future as well. We
want control over our destinies, and alternate histories (in
general) say that there is _n_o_t pre-destination, but rather free
will. (This may have arisen out of Kim Stanley Robinson's comments
in his lecture on Postmodernism, when he noted, "The future is going
to be different depending on what we do.") In traditional Judaism
it is a sin to wish for something that is not possible, e.g., to
want to change history. Yet alternate histories give us a way
(vicariously) to do this. I also thought that part of my interest
was based in my Jewishness--what if the Holocaust could have been
prevented?
We never actually figured out why alternate histories were
science fiction, although Linaweaver said they were part of the
"speculative fiction" aspect of "SF." In history and economics
they've been around for a while, as "counter-factuals." In any
case, the panelists (especially the authors) said they hoped people
kept reading them. Linaweaver also added that he enjoyed alternate
histories because he still believed in human genius, and I suggested
that the lesson to be learned from them is that one person can make
a difference.
At the end, many people requested copies of the Robert
Schmunk's alternate history list, an invaluable reference.
Linaweaver and Thomas Cron are working on a bibliography in book
form, but it's not out yet.
(I would like to note here that John Flynn came _i_n_c_r_e_d_i_b_l_y
prepared for this panel--certainly more than I was. For example, he
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 11
mentioned that in his reading up, he found that someone referred to
change-points as the "Jon Bar Hinge," after the character in
Williamson's _L_e_g_i_o_n _o_f _T_i_m_e. I would recommend him as a totally
reliable panelist for other conventions.)
Panel: TTTThhhheeee 111100000000 MMMMPPPPGGGG EEEEnnnnggggiiiinnnneeee:::: LLLLeeeeggggeeeennnnddddssss TTTThhhhaaaatttt WWWWiiiillllllll NNNNooootttt DDDDiiiieeee
Saturday, 10:00 AM
Gregory Benford (m), Rick Cook, Steve Howe, Daniel L. Marcus
"'Suppressed technology.' How do stories get started about
cars that run on water, carburetors that allow 90 miles per gallon,
and anti-cancer drugs made from common household chemicals?": Well,
I had expected a panel talking about technological "urban legends"
but instead got one talking about how some of these "wildcat" ideas
are real, but not marketable. For example, there are cars that can
get eighty miles per gallon of gasoline, but they are undrivable
under street conditions: they have no acceleration and constantly
backfire. The Wankel (rotary) engine was another idea that failed
on its own merits (rather than being suppressed); its fuel
consumption was high (about fourteen miles per gallon) and it
generated a lot of pollution because the seals were never perfected.
(So just what was its advantage supposed to be? I can't even
remember.)
And then there was the nuclear-powered airplane. Oh, it would
have worked, but sufficient shielding around the fuel would have
made it too heavy, so it would only work if you had a crew that
didn't mind getting fried by the radiation, _a_n_d it would also
irradiate all the land it flew over. But the designers had thought
of what to do with it when they were done--they would land it in
Antarctica and use that as a nuclear-waste dump. (Luckily, this
idea never got off the ground--so to speak.)
And remember SDI? This was described by one of the panelists
as a "Fast Eddie" Teller idea, and eventually people concluded that
it also had more flaws than virtues.
Other ideas probably were more workable, but not wise. Small
nuclear bombs, weighing less than a hundred pounds complete, could
be used by guerilla forces in Europe after it was overrun by the
Soviets. Well, that was the original idea, but someone apparently
realized that given the state of the world, having bombs this small
that people could smuggle around was a _r_e_a_l_l_y bad idea.
On the other hand, the L5 solar power satellite sounded crazy
initially, but turned out to be a good idea.
But why do we believe all the fantastic stories of great
inventions and discoveries, even when they are bogus? (Cold fusion
comes to mind, naturally, although it was pointed out that the whole
cold fusion thing did teach us a lot about sub-quantum states.)
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 12
Well, for one thing, we _w_a_n_t to believe them. Someone (Thomas
Hardy, I think) wrote a poem about how there was a legend that on
Christmas Eve, animals could talk, and said at the end that he
didn't believe it, but that if someone say it were happening in the
barn, he would go, "wishing it might be so." Certainly there must
be some explanation of why people believe what they read in the
_W_e_e_k_l_y _W_o_r_l_d _N_e_w_s.
Howe said that one problem is that science nowadays is all done
as "big science." His analogy is that it's as if the government of
the 19th Century deciding to explore the West with an army that
marches together as a unit instead of with lots of small exploration
and settlement parties. So the "small science" is left with more
than its share of cranks. Benford said that his school (University
of California at Irvine), the crank calls are doled out to the
various professors. Most fall into two categories: 1) "What was
that thing I saw in the sky last night?" and 2) "I have a new energy
source that will save the world." Howe asked whether Benford
wouldn't be sorry if he rejected someone who turned out to be a
genius. "Would I be sorry? Yes. But what are the odds?"
One panelist noted that he is more bothered by stories of
suppressed cancer cures than stories of suppressed energy sources,
because the latter are usually just humorous, but the former touch
people personally in matters of life and death. Someone asked about
Linus Pauling's theories about anti-oxidants, and the response was
that since he was still walking five miles a day at age 92, they
shouldn't be written off too quickly.
One audience member noted that the panelists were referring to
crackpots as "he" and asked if they had ever run across any female
crackpots, to which Benford responded, "I've dated some." Cook
noted, however, that female crackpots seem to be more conspiracy
theorists than scientists.
One problem with the whole "suppression" and "conspiracy"
theory these days is that suppressing an idea in the United States
doesn't do much about suppressing it globally. Of course, there is
suppression here, but it is more from the Food & Drug Administration
and liability laws than from any secret coterie. In addition (as
was noted earlier) the public suppresses things by not buying them
and hence driving them off the market. Most products represent a
trade-off: you can get more miles per gallon, but only if you are
willing to buy a smaller, lighter, slower car. Other products are
monopolized (the example given was forceps, invented in the 14th
Century but monopolized for a hundred years by one family).
Along the lines of the suppression theories, I recommend David
Mamet's _W_a_t_e_r _E_n_g_i_n_e, recently made into a movie for TNT.
ConFrancisco September 6, 1993 Page 13
(There was a certain irony to the fact that this was opposite
the panel on Nikola Tesla, and in fact, there was odd sounds coming
over the public address system that may have been coming from the
demonstrations associated with the other panel.)
Panel: WWWWhhhheeeennnn FFFFaaaannnnddddoooommmm aaaannnndddd RRRReeeeaaaallll WWWWoooorrrrlllldddd PPPPoooolllliiiittttiiiiccccssss CCCCoooolllllllliiiiddddeeee
Saturday, 11:00 AM
Abi Frost, Jeanne Gomoll (m), Andi Shechter, Ben Yalow
"What should fandom do about boycotts, strikes, war, and real
world politics?": Clearly, fandom does need to take note of them:
this year's Eurocon was moved to the Channel Isles from Zagreb. But
not only lately is there the possibility that conventions will get
involved with real-world politics--this has always been the case.
The split in fandom at the first Worldcon (when several people were
turned away at the door and went across the street to hold their own
convention) was part of a larger dispute between the Left (those
turned away) and the Right (those running the convention).
It's convenient to think that fandom is united on social
issues, but fandom isn't united on _a_n_y_t_h_i_n_g. There are plenty of
left-wing fanzines and right-wing fanzines and other-wing fanzines.
The best we can say is that fandom is self-policing and self-
censoring: most conventions these days try to avoid taking a stand
on one side or the other of any issue. (Iguanacon was a major
exception to this, and many fans still resent the "co-opting" of
that convention as a political statement. It's true that there are
smaller conventions which are specifically feminist or otherwise
specifically directed, but these are announced as this way up
front.) Fandom is _n_o_t apolitical, perhaps (someone suggested)
because fans think about and care about the future.
One need only look at the various awards given out in science
fiction to see the breadth of the politics: the Prometheus Award by
the Libertarians, the Tiptree Award for examination of gender roles,
the Gryphon Award, and so on. There is no consensus on anything.
However, labor disputes are another matter. Given that
conventions need to deal with unions in hotels and convention
centers, they must keep abreast of current disputes. And someone
mentioned that fans sometimes need to be warned not to be arrogant
toward unionized employees--sometimes our elitism is showing.
(If fandom were paying attention to the real world, would they
be scheduling Worldcons to run right into Rosh Hashonah, as is
happening next year?)
(End of Part 2)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK