| Evelyn C. Leeper's Readercon III Report. Posted with permission.
From: DECPA::"mtgzy!ecl" "Evelyn C Leeper +1 201 957 2070" 20-APR-1990 18:17:07.23
To: "Chris Lowe - KITS - DTN: 237-3007" <att!decwrl!kits.enet!lowe>
CC:
Subj: Re: Readercon 3 report
> Please send me the Readercon 3 report. I would like to be on your
> mailing list for these reports. I'd also like permission to repost the
> con reports in our DEC-only Notesfile.
Okay on reposting.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or [email protected]
--
If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when? --Hillel
From: DECPA::"mtgzy!ecl" "Evelyn C Leeper +1 201 957 2070" 20-APR-1990 19:55:32.16
To: "Chris Lowe - KITS - DTN: 237-3007" <att!decwrl!kits.enet!lowe>
CC:
Subj: Re: Readercon 3 report
===========================cut here to print=============================
Readercon 3
Con report by Evelyn C. Leeper
Copyright 1990 Evelyn C. Leeper
To be honest, we were not planning on attending Readercon this
year. What with Confiction in Holland (two weeks vacation) and a
three-week trip to Southeast Asia planned, we were strapped for vacation
days, and it is hard for us to get to a convention in the Boston area
without taking an extra day. In addition, last year's program was in
parts a bit too academic and dry--well, let's be honest: in parts it was
unintelligible. Then again, why should anything about a convention on a
seventeen-month cycle be intelligible? But I digress, and anyway the
cycle has shifted again; the next Readercon is in only fifteen months.
However, after I was asked to be one of the judges for the Readercon
Small Press Awards (the others were Thomas M. Disch, John Shirley,
Kathryn Cramer, Paul Chadwick, Jerry Kaufman, and Greg Ketter), we
decided to sandwich it in, resulting in a truly ridiculous schedule for
the weekend (March 30 through April 1, 1990).
We left work about 4PM and drove to my parents' house in Chicopee,
arriving about 9PM (rain and fog in Connecticut slowed us down
somewhat). Having not seen them for at least four months, and having
been to Boskone in February and not seen them then, we really could not
be this close and not at least drop in. We spent an hour and a half
with them, which included telling them I was nominated for a Hugo (which
we have taken to describing as "like the Oscars for science fiction" for
non-sf types), then drove up to Kate's place in Amherst, arriving about
11PM. More fog on the way convinced me that the weather gods had it in
for us, but luckily none of this ever turned to snow.
Saturday morning we left about 8 AM after ascertaining that, yes, I
did have a map of Massachusetts--in the hectic packing I had not
remembered to check the car. The trip to Lowell was easy, with little
traffic and clear(er) weather, and we arrived at the Lowell Hilton about
9:50 AM--not bad timing for a convention that opens at 10 AM.
Registration was fast for us since we were preregistered, though
the at-the-door memberships had a bit of a line. Freebies included a
Tor Double and James Patrick Kelly's latest novel, LOOK INTO THE SUN.
It is unusual to see as major a book as the latter as a convention
giveaway, but I suspect Tor figured that Readercon attendees would be
the most likely to read it and recommend it to others.
Hotel and Function Space
Unlike last year, the convention was spread out over several
floors. The main programming was on the first floor, the fan
programming, readings and other one-author items were on the second
floor, and the con suite was on the eighth floor (getting it away from
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 2
the Green Room--last year they were adjacent and people tended to drift
into the Green Room who did not belong there). The rooms all seemed the
right size for the groups in them (fairly unusual for conventions or any
meetings these days--I attribute this as much to luck as anything else).
This year the program guide included a map of the hotel (sorely missed
last year) and a restaurant guide.
There is not much point to describing the function space, or Lowell
for that matter, in any greater detail--next year Readercon is moving to
the Worcester Marriott. (And just when we found a great Southeast Asian
restaurant in Lowell!)
Dealers' Room
Of course the Dealers' Room was entirely books. There were about
the same number of dealers as last year (a dozen or so), and this year
there were a couple of dealers selling new paperbacks (a serious
deficiency last year). Several people commented on the relative paucity
of the Dealers' Room compared to, say, Boskone, but this was due to
several reasons. First, since the committee expected around 300 people
actually attending, they aimed for an appropriately sized Dealers' Room.
But 400 people attended, making the room seem small and crowded.
Second, dealers do not want to compete with a lot of other dealers, all
selling the same thing--in this case, books. It cuts down on everyone's
margin. And last, no Dealers' Room is ever large enough to satisfy the
true reader!
Though the Dealers' Room was scheduled to stay open until 7 PM on
Saturday, the dealers all left at 5 PM for dinner. Sunday the Dealers'
Room closed at 3 PM. In spite of its small size, I managed to buy ten
books in the first five minutes!
Programming
The programming was expanded from last year's, with two main tracks
of programming, a "mini-track," and a fan track. For years people have
been suggesting that conventions try variable-length items (some panels
an hour, some ninety minutes, etc.) and staggered starting times, so the
committee decided to give it a try. This did serve one useful purpose.
Before, it was just opinion to say that it would not work well. Now
when the topic comes up, one can state that there is experiential
evidence that it would not work well. By staggering the starting times,
the committee made it impossible for me to attend more than about 75% of
what I wanted to see. If there was an item from 2:30 to 3:30, for
example, it effectively ruled out any items at 2 or at 3. (I do not
like to arrive late to or leave early from a panel--the latter can
easily make the panelists think you did not like them rather than just
that there was something else you needed to get to.)
On the plus side, the panel discussion were held around a coffee
table (a la Dick Cavett's old show) rather than at the usual higher
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 3
table. This made the panelists seem less separated from the audience,
and it also resulted in there being no place for panelists to prop up
copies of all their books they were pushing. (Consider that a minor
benefit, but there was noticeably less pushing of one's own books this
year.)
Since we did not arrive until Saturday morning, we missed the
Friday night programming, which was not very heavily scheduled anyway.
(Many of the pros who would be on panels did not arrive until Saturday
either.) What to schedule for the first night's programming is
difficult. It cannot be anything truly major, since people are still
trickling in. Even the obvious "Meet the Pros" party has problems--not
all the pros are there yet. Eric says they have some ideas for next
year, but this has been a problem for every convention and I doubt it
can be solved by then.
Reading
Kim Stanley Robinson
Saturday, 10:00 AM
Due to the later starts of the major tracks, the first item I
attended was the Kim Stanley Robinson reading. As usual, the reading
was an excerpt from a forthcoming work rather than a self-contained
item, but I cannot for the life of me remember what the title was. I do
remember that there were some fairly unpleasant characters and drugs in
it.
OK for You, Blasphemy: Critiquing Religion in Imaginative Literature
John Kessel (moderator), Thomas M. Disch, M. J. Engh,
James Morrow, Paul Park
Saturday, 11:30 AM
This began with Kessel asking the panelists to introduce themselves
and give their religious backgrounds. If they had all gone into the
detail that Engh did, they never would have gotten to the main meat of
the panel. Engh described herself as Methodist turned atheist, Morrow
as Presbyterian (actually generic Protestant) turned secular humanist,
Kessel as ethnic Catholic "in recovery now." Park said he was an
Anglican (High Church) who currently is "a mix of strict Roman
Catholicism and jeering atheism" and is currently writing theological
thrillers.
Disch talked about growing up German in the 1940s (when being
German meant trying as hard as possible to have *no* ethnic
characteristics) and Catholic in a sort of "S&M" Catholicism with much
emphasis on Hell and its torments. As a result(?), he says he loves
seeing religious hypocrites "get theirs": Father Ritter, Jim and Tammy
Bakker, etc. His religion is currently "ex-Catholic, one of the largest
and most passionate religions" today.
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 4
I found it interesting that, given the high proportion of Jews
writing science fiction, there were no Jews (or ex-Jews) on the panel.
But more on that later.
Morrow flung down the gauntlet, more or less, saying that Bible
morality is second-rate and crude, and that this was what led him to
write his series of "Bible Stories for Adults," examining more closely
this morality. This raised the question of whether authors argue more
with God or with the presentation of God by religions. Someone
described Christianity as "fascinating stuff, a rich field, and pretty
appalling" to which Park responded that one rarely sees the good and
pure degenerate into the bad and evil as quickly as in (organized)
religion. Kessel claimed that organized religion had stolen Jesus the
same way the Republicans have stolen the flag.
In response to a comment from the audience, the panelists agreed
that most of their works dealt with Western monotheism (Christianity,
Judaism, and Islam), avoiding such religions as Hinduism or Buddhism.
Engh tried to put forth an argument that neo-paganism was really
monotheism, but I was not convinced and I do not think the audience was
either. Morrow claimed that blasphemers are often accused of striking
first when they are in fact only striking back.
Disch quoted Thomas Carlyle as saying that writers have taken on
the role of prophecy, and Disch concluded that this was one reason why
writers, especially science fiction writers, want to dictate or preach
to their audiences. Disch asked "why Cardinal O'Conner should set the
agenda" in telling people how to misbehave. And, yes, he did say
"misbehave"--after all (as I interpret his statement) the Church issues
a list of sins which many people seem to treat as checklists.
Of course, science fiction is just a thought experiment, which is
what makes all this possible. For that matter, *is* Morrow's ONLY
BEGOTTEN DAUGHTER science fiction? Is any religious science fiction,
science fiction or is it fantasy? (For that matter, is Hugh
Schonfield's PASSOVER PLOT fantasy?) And as fantasy, does it try to be
predictive in the way that science fiction occasionally does?
As for the lack of Jews on the panel, this ties in with my
observation that most "attacks" on organized religion attack
Christianity rather than Judaism or Islam. Is this due to the fact that
an attack on a Christian preacher is somehow more acceptable than an
attack on a Jewish rabbi? (Yeah, I know that is redundant.) I cannot
help but feel that if someone like Morrow or Parke Godwin took aim at
the Chief Rabbinate in Jerusalem they would be accused of anti-Semitism
faster than a speeding bullet. Morrow may also have hit upon part of
the answer when he said (in response to a question about whether the
panelists were being "dismissive" of religion), "Religion is riding high
in the saddle now and by God somebody has to be dismissive!" In the
United States it is only Christianity, and a small subset of
Christianity at that, which could be termed "riding high in the saddle."
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 5
Disch observed that stories of early Christianity and such
religious leaders as Joseph Smith would be intriguing, in that the
author would presumably have to reconcile the idea that the characters
believed they were religiously inspired, while the author believed they
were not.
The panel closed with Disch observing (in some context) that no one
would ever accuse Isaac Asimov of subtle characters and Park responding,
"This is blasphemy!"
After this, we went to lunch with someone from AT&T in Lowell. We
ate at the Southeast Asian Restaurant, which serves Thai, Laotian, and
Cambodian food--very good and recommended, though the service was a bit
slow. Then again, we were under some serious time constraints, since I
had to get back for my 2 PM discussion.
The Books I Give Mainstream Readers
Greg Cox, Daniel P. Dern, Scott E. Green,
Theresa Nielsen-Hayden, Marjorie Bradley Kellogg,
Robert Killheffer, Eleanor Lang, Evelyn Leeper, Susan Palwick
Saturday, 2:00 PM
This was a round-table discussion rather than a panel, so there was
no moderator. Some of the books suggested (and the people suggesting
them) were:
- Burgess, Anthony, anything
- Dann, Jack, WANDERING STARS (Leeper)
- Davies, L. P., anything (Green)
- Dickinson, Peter, anything
- Finney, Jack, TIME AND AGAIN (someone gave this to his grandmother
and she really enjoyed it, having gone through the same "time-
travel" experience, albeit in real time)
- Harris, Thomas, THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (Palwick)
- Koontz, Dean R., LIGHTNING (this seems a bit like recommending
Stephen King these days--working with a net) (Green)
- Kushner, Ellen, SWORDSPOINT (Killheffer)
- LeGuin, Ursula K., THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS (Kellogg)
- Manguel, Alberto, BLACK WATER (Leeper)
- Silverberg, Robert, DYING INSIDE (Killheffer)
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 6
- Sturgeon, Theodore, MORE THAN HUMAN (Palwick)
- Wilson, Colin, anything
Green suggested "John Wyndham's EXILE" set in post-holocaust
Labrador--I do not know of any such novel.
Someone suggested leading people into science fiction without their
knowing what it is. The danger in this is that, as Mark observed, "If
you lead someone into science fiction without their knowing what it is,
they may leave without knowing they've been there." The example I gave
was that Mark's sister had seen and liked COCOON, but did not realize it
was science fiction. My response to her was that if a film about aliens
coming to Earth and giving people immortality was not science fiction,
I'd like to know what was.
I observed that one really has to tailor one's suggestions to the
recipient, so that (for example) I give my Jewish relatives WANDERING
STARS and my Hispanic relatives BLACK WATER. Other people thought
near-future stories worked better than far-future, and cyberpunk should
be recommended sparingly, if at all. (One person said that a friend to
whom she gave NEUROMANCER kept waiting for the terms to be defined--and
they never were.)
Other people thought recommending shorter works was a better idea,
since the recipient did not feel they were making as large a time
investment. This will only work if the recipient does not have a
prejudice against shorter fiction--apparently these days many people
will not read anything shorter than a novel. Still, an anthology should
make them feel they are getting enough without having only one story on
which science fiction will stand or fall. (You had better tell them it
*is* an anthology--I have heard stories of people getting anthologies and
complaining that the various parts of the "novel" did not seem to fit
together!)
After the discussion we sat and talked to Jerry Boyajian for a
while (having finally delivered to him a tape we had brought to three
conventions for him!) about movies (gasp!) and Usenet. I dropped into
the Lucius Shepard reading to get his autograph on GREEN EYES, but did
not stay because I wanted to go to the next panel.
That's Incomprehensible: Imagining the Truly Alien
Alexander Jablokov (moderator), Jeffrey A. Carver,
James Patrick Kelly, Paul Park, Steven Popkes
Saturday, 4:00 PM
Jablokov opened this panel by saying that authors who tried to
write about the truly alien had a difficult task, because they had to
write about people "even weirder than the people they meet on the
subway."
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 7
Kelly talked about how he uses stylistic tricks to try to make the
aliens "different." For example, in his latest book, one race uses no
contractions in its speech (shades of Data!) and another uses only words
derived from Anglo-Saxon, which he also expressed as having no Latin or
Greek roots, but the two are not truly identical. Put another way, what
he said was not quite kosher, if you catch my drift. Kelly also
recommended Julian Jaynes's THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE
BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND.*
Popkes felt that the key to writing alien aliens was to realize
that they had their own agenda. Where humans put food and shelter high
on what they want, aliens might have a different set of priorities (but
it better make sense from an evolutionary and survival point of view, in
my opinion, or readers will not be convinced). Kelly thought it would
be helpful if there were a "periodic chart of emotions" so that you
could describe alien emotions better ("fear-2-dread-unhappiness-4"?).
By the end of the panel, the conclusion seemed to be that you could
not make the truly alien comprehensible or it would not be alien. On
the other hand, it is much more acceptable to give aliens problems than
to show humans with problems. A book depicting racism in aliens will be
understood (one hopes) to be a parallel for racism in our world, and
will be easier to get published and be read by a lot more people.
Zen and the Art of Anthology Editing
David G. Hartwell (moderator), Kathryn Cramer, Jack Dann,
Jeanne Van Buren Dann, Terri Windling
Saturday, 5:00 PM
Naturally the first editor mentioned was Martin H. Greenburg, the
most prolific editor currently working in the genre (or just about any
genre, come to think of it). The panelists claimed only one other
person had ever achieved his entire reputation in the science fiction
field as an anthology editor. The only catch was they did not say who
this was. Mark and I were sure they meant Groff Conklin, but what they
were saying did not sound like they were talking about Conklin, so
finally we asked just who they did mean. "Roger Elwood." "What about
Groff Conklin." "Oh, no, he made his reputation [somewhere else--I
forget where they said]." I still think Groff Conklin fit their
description--after all Elwood and Greenburg have both done other things
as well.
__________
* An interesting note here: I did not get the title quite correct in
my notes, but could not find it in BOOKS IN PRINT to fix it. Then,
less than 12 hours later, I ran across it in one of the
introductions in Harry Turtledove's new collection. Synchronicity!
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 8
Anyway, Roger Elwood apparently sold two hundred anthology
contracts in eighteen months, buying up the complete short fiction
output of several prolific authors. Before Elwood came along,
anthologies were rare, and generally high-quality. Readers had come to
expect they would be worth buying and reading. The enormous number of
mediocre anthologies Elwood produced resulted in readers becoming
extremely skeptical of anthologies. So for a long time anthologies were
anathema--they are only now recovering.
Cramer claimed that in a discussion of how good a job Greenburg was
doing she said that even if he did nothing else, the mathematics say
that he could not possibly be spending enough time on each anthology to
be doing a good job. To me, this is not a convincing argument. You
need to look at the finished product. If it is bad, then even if he
spent six years on it alone, it is bad. And if it is good, claiming
that it could not possibly be because he did not spend enough time on it
is ridiculous. ("I don't care what pictures you took, Mr. Wright; man
cannot fly in a heavier-than-air machine.")
The panel claimed that Greenburg's method, at least for anthologies
co-edited with Isaac Asimov, is that his researchers pick 120,000 words
on a topic. Then Asimov selects 100,000 words of this. Greenburg (or
his staff) then tracks down the necessary permissions, etc. Sometimes
these are unobtainable, so some stories can still get dropped. Then
Asimov writes a short introduction to each story and presto! a new
anthology.
Actually, of course, the term "new" anthology is ambiguous. In
order to avoid confusion between anthologies of never-before-published
stories and anthologies that have never been published before in that
form, though the individual stories have appeared previously, science
fiction calls the former "original anthologies" and the latter "reprint
anthologies." (And single-author "anthologies" are called
"collections.") Reprint anthologies are much easier to do--the stories
are already written. For original anthologies, the editor has to keep
"hocking the author's chineks," as Jack Dann said (badgering the
author). IN THE FIELD OF FIRE, which he and Jeanne Van Buren Dann co-
edited, was conceived by accident at a Boskone when Jeanne casually said
something to Beth Meacham's husband about doing an anthology of Vietnam
War stories. (Beth Meacham is an editor at Tor Books.) It took about a
year of hard work to put together--very different from the amount of
effort that goes into the average Greenburg reprint anthology. And even
so, I believe that some of the stories in IN THE FIELD OF FIRE were
reprints.
Anthologies such as the various YEAR'S BEST are done on a less
intensive schedule. Rather than having to read a hundred stories on a
single topic in a short period of time, the editor has the "luxury" of
reading a range of stories over the entire year.
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 9
When the panel was asked what they thought of shared-world
anthologies, Terri Windling responded that they could be enjoyable and
show an author's ability to work in a very structured framework, but
that she did not go to them for literature. Since she is the
originator/editor of the "Bordertown" shared-world series, her opinion
carries some weight, I should think. (I asked later if IN THE FIELDS OF
FIRE was a shared-world anthology, since it had many of the same
characteristics. The panel did not think so, but I do not think they
could explain exactly why not. Maybe they just did not have time.)
Someone mentioned the Australian anthology EXPRESSWAY, based on a
painting around which various authors wrote stories. This reminded me
of Hal Clement's novel OCEAN ON TOP, also inspired by a painting. This
seems like a very promising idea--as someone pointed out, for a change
this lets the *artist* have free rein and the authors have to write to
fit the picture.
Since we had eaten so much at lunch we skipped dinner and sat
around waiting for the evening's events to begin. The Green Room was
closed (luckily I had time to go in and change into my more formal
attire for the awards ceremony before they locked it). We tried
dropping into the con suite, but it was empty. So we sat around on the
couches outside the main room and read--we did have books! At 8:00 PM,
Eric came into the main room and announced that since the restaurant
where John Crowley went to dinner was very slow in serving, the
question-and-answer period would be moved to Sunday, and everything else
would be a half-hour late. At 9:00 PM, Crowley arrived, very
apologetic, and read an excerpt from LOVE AND SlEEP, the unfinished
sequel to AEGYPT.
Readercon Small Press Awards
Co-ordinators: Robert Colby, Eric Van
Judges: Thomas M. Disch, John Shirley, Kathryn Cramer,
Paul Chadwick, Jerry Kaufman, Greg Ketter, Evelyn Leeper
Saturday, 10:00 PM
In November 1989 I was asked to be one of the seven judges for the
Readercon Small Press Awards. (The other six were Thomas M. Disch, John
Shirley, Kathryn Cramer, Paul Chadwick, Jerry Kaufman, and Greg Ketter.)
As a result, I found myself reading seven novels, three chapbooks, six
original collections, five reprint collections, three original
anthologies, one reprint anthology, sixteen non-fiction works, six
miscellaneous works, and 66 volumes of 29 different magazines from the
"small press"--113 items in all. (A full report on what I discovered
will probably appear shortly in OTHERREALMS.)
John Shirley and Jerry Kaufman were unable to attend Readercon 3,
but the other five of us were all there to present the awards. Kathryn
Cramer, apparently styling herself after Vanna White or whoever the
current bimbo is, wore a bright green swimsuit. Her job in the
ceremonies was to present the envelopes containing the winners' names to
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 10
the actual presenters. Now maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy, but to me
this sort of thing cheapens the awards. (I would note here that several
of the men I was with said that they were not particularly thrilled with
Cramer in a high-legged swimsuit, so it is not just me.)
And the winners were:
- Novel -- No Award
- Short Work -- A DOZEN TOUGH JOBS, Howard Waldrop (Mark V. Ziesing)
- Single-Author Collection -- RICHARD MATHESON: COLLECTED STORIES,
Richard Matheson (Scream/Press)
- Anthology -- WHAT DID MISS DARRINGTON SEE?: AN ANTHOLOGY OF
FEMINIST SUPERNATURAL FICTION, Jessica Amanda Salmonson, ed.
(Feminist Press)
- Non-Fiction -- THE DARK-HAIRED GIRL, Philip K. Dick (Mark
V. Ziesing)
- Reference/Bibliography -- No Award
- Reprint -- THE ANUBIS GATES, Tim Powers (Mark V. Ziesing)
- Jacket Illustration -- J. K. Potter, THE ANUBIS GATES (Mark
V. Ziesing)
- Interior Illustration -- Mark Ferrari & Tom Sullivan, S. PETERSON'S
FIELD GUIDE TO CREATURES OF THE DREAMLANDS (Chaosium)
- Value in Bookcraft -- RICHARD MATHESON: COLLECTED STORIES, Richard
Matheson (Scream/Press)
- Magazines (Fiction) -- INTERZONE, David Pringle, ed. (Interzone)
- Magazines (Criticism) -- SCIENCE FICTION EYE, Stephen P. Brown &
Daniel J. Steffan, eds. (Science Fiction Eye)
- Magazines (Design) -- SCIENCE FICTION EYE, Stephen P. Brown &
Daniel J. Steffan, eds. (Science Fiction Eye)
As you may have noticed, Mark V. Ziesing got a *lot* of awards. (I
think he had nine certificates by the end of the evening, some for him
and some for the various authors and artists.) In general, I was
pleased with the choices. The "No Award" categories deserve some
additional comment. In the novel category, there was a three-way tie
for first place, with one of the three being "No Award." Clearly, this
sort of result really means that there is no clear award, though it does
not mean, as is often the case, that nothing was worthy of recognition.
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 11
At 10:30 PM the infamous Kirk Poland Bad Prose Competition took
place. Kate and Pete wanted to stay for this, so we looked for
something else to do. There was nothing else to do. Even the con suite
was closed. To keep harping on bad prose is bad enough, but to make
this the featured jewel of the convention, against which there is no
opposition programming, seems totally contrary to the spirit of
Readercon. (End of soapbox.)
At 12:30 AM or so, the Kirk Poland ended and given the late hour,
people decided *not* to stay for the film. Yes, Readercon was showing a
film! In this case, they justified it by saying that their policy
allowed showing documentaries written by their guests of honor; this
year is was WORLD OF TOMORROW, a documentary about the 1939 World's
Fair. (Mark and I had already seen a sixty-minute version of it.) This
"policy" sounds as if it was made up on the spot. While this may not
mean that Readercon is on the slippery slope to media fandom, this
gradual erosion (rock 'n' roll the first year, now films, next year
maybe an art show) needs to be carefully watched. (This is semi-
humorous, but only semi.)
We did not get lost driving to Pete's house this year, but we did
cheat and use walkie-talkies.
Sunday morning we arrived about 10:30 AM and hung out in the
Dealers' Room for a while. We also had a long debate in the con suite
about the Kirk Poland Competition. The main argument people give in
favor of it seems to be, "But everyone enjoys it so much!" Then we sat
outside where we talked to various passersby. Laurie Mann stopped by
and asked how I was enjoying Readercon. I said it was so depressing--no
one had congratulated me on my Hugo nomination! She and I agreed that
we probably should have brought the full list of nominees to be posted
on the bulletin board since it seemed that most people had not heard
them yet. (Well, they had been on Usenet for a week and a half, so we
just sort of assumed *everyone* knew.)
The Dog That Wags the Tales: SF and Fandom
Fred Lerner (moderator), Greg Cox, Janice M. Eisen,
Scott E. Green, Evelyn Leeper
Sunday, 12:00 PM
This should have been subtitled "The Peripatetic Panel." The sign
outside the assigned room redirected us to another room. It turned out
that room was scheduled for a reading, so we were then sent to a third
room. Here Eric said that we should start in the third room and after a
half-hour move into the *first* room, which would then be free, because
the third room was needed for something else. At this point, we put
our collective feet down and said we were not going to start in one room
and then move--we wanted a room that we could keep for the entire time.
After about five minutes, we got our original room and stayed there the
whole hour.
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 12
We started by going around the room and introducing ourselves.
After I had introduced myself, Laurie said, "Tell them what happened to
you last week!" I felt a little strange saying that I had been
nominated, but luckily Mark announced it for me.
Teresa Nielsen-Hayden described herself as having tested "skiffy-
positive" and claimed this was a "textually transmitted disease."
Fred Lerner then appointed himself moderator, which was okay,
except for his tendency to say things merely to be provocative without
thinking if they could withstand even the smallest attack. He started
by asking people to define fandom, and this consumed most of the hour.
Scott Green claimed that fans are wannabe writers, and also insisted he
was not a fan. When we discovered he actually bet on boxing matches,
many of us then agreed that he was not a fan after all. After all, as
someone said, fans are usually participants, not spectators. (Or as
someone said, "I came, I talked, I fought.")
regarding the wannabe writers, someone observed that "fanzines are
not prozines with training wheels" and that fans should not consider
that their experience in fanzines improves their qualifications for
prozines."
It was observed (by Fred?) that "fandom is an organism with an
infinitely short attention span and an infinitely long memory." Lerner
also defined fans as including all those who "publicly consort with
known fans."
There was much comparison with other sorts of fandom (crossword
puzzle fandom, railroad fandom, etc.). Fred said that he distinguished
between "fandom" and "Fandom," the latter being strictly connected to
science fiction. Later he said that science fiction deals with
everything, and I pointed out that by transitivity (or maybe it's
associativity) that meant that "fandom" was the same as "Fandom."
I gave a variation of Damon Knight's definition of science fiction:
"Fandom is what I point to when I say it." This is obviously more
descriptive than proscriptive, but few people argued with it.
People tried approaching this from the point of view of "fannish
sensibilities." Whereas most people in social situations make small
talk, in fandom people talk about "facts." This is often carried to the
extreme that you can have a very long and detailed conversation with
someone and never know their name, their occupation, or anything else
about them except their opinion on what color the ancient Greeks painted
their houses. Someone said that a fannish gathering consisted of people
reciting facts to each other. The ultimate fannish activity ever
observed was Terry Carr and Ted White sitting in a bar and reciting
addresses (not names!) of fans to each other and reminiscing about them.
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 13
Fans also collect things--everything, and obsessively.
No true conclusions were reached, though "Smoffing 101" and
"Trufans Versus Fans: An Advanced Panel" were suggested for future
conventions.
After the panel, most of us continued talking by the couches
outside the room for another hour about fans and fandom. Teresa
Nielsen-Hayden said that when she first saw my name listed as a Hugo
nominee for fan writer, she thought, "But she only writes things
electronically." Then she said she thought about it and decided that it
was okay after all. And certainly I would think it should be. But is
it?
When I got home I looked up the qualifications for eligibility.
The definition for a fan writer for the Hugos this year is: "Any person
whose writing appeared in semiprozines or fanzines during 1989." It
would appear that people might claim that electronic fanac (fannish
activity) would not be enough to qualify me. However, since I did
appear in LAN'S LANTERN, I definitely am eligible, although what I was
nominated for was probably not what appeared in LAN'S LANTERN. Of
course, my appearances in the MT VOID would also make me eligible.
Since that particular fanzine is circulated pretty much just within
AT&T, it is unlikely anyone used it as a basis, but even without
appearances in "external" fanzines, I could claim eligibility. And this
does not even involve deciding whether SF-LOVERS DIGEST is a fanzine!
As I said (at great and boring length in my Boskone con report),
the whole issue of electronic fandom is a real can of worms that the
World Science Fiction Convention will have to deal with eventually. For
now, they can avoid the issue somewhat by giving SF-LOVERS DIGEST a
"special" Hugo, but maybe this is just postponing the inevitable.
Her comments got me to thinking, though. She apparently gets my
convention reports (Hi, Teresa!) and gets them electronically, but I do
not have her on my mailing list. So people must be forwarding them
around. That is okay, but I am curious who *is* getting and reading
them. So if you got this from someone other than me, please drop an
e-note to me at [email protected] and let me know. Thanks!
After the overflow discussion wound down, I talked to someone about
Arisia. Apparently it was successful, although the film program was
somewhat spotty, and the book presence was minimal.
I dropped by the Dealers' Room and talked to a few people there.
Jerry Boyajian was sitting behind Mark Ziesing's table and said he had
been pressed into service for the "Comics Discussion Group." I talked
to Greg Ketter about the Small Press Awards and some of the problems.
Greg feels that seven judges is too many just because of the logistics.
It is a large financial drain on small presses to send out seven
complimentary copies of a book that may have had a press run of only a
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 14
few hundred, yet unless they send them out they have little chance of
winning. Also, with reference books (and others) priced at $50 and
above, it is a problem to ask a publisher to send out several hundred
dollars' worth of books. Charnel House did not send out any copies of
their $150 THE STRESS OF HER REGARD and also did not get a lot of votes-
--judges tend not to vote on what they do not see. I commented that
having fewer judges might make the awards too susceptible to favoritism
and cliquism. Greg said that one suggestion made by the committee was
to ask for one copy of each eligible book and have the judges route
them. Even with Readercon picking up the shipping tab, this is just not
workable. I do not have time to re-package books--more to the point, I
do not have time to drive to someplace to ship them when I have finished
repackaging them. And when the final ballot rolls around, I would want
to be able to go back and compare the finalists again. (This was
especially valuable for the jacket illustration category, where I laid
all seven books out and could rank-order them fairly quickly. Without
the books in front of me, forget it!) If all the judges were in the
same geographical area, *maybe* it could be done by having all the books
available at one place and people could examine them there (the NESFA
clubhouse or the back room at the Science Fiction Shop, for example),
but even this sounds like a disaster in the making. I am sure the
Readercon committee would appreciate any ideas you have along these
lines.
Stop Me If You've Heard of This One: More Great Obscure Books
Terry Bisson, John M. Ford, Scott E. Green, Franklin Hummel
Sunday, 2:30 PM
As usual, I will provide just a listing of the books recommended
(with who recommended them, if I made a note):
- Blish, James, "After Such Knowledge" series (A CASE OF CONSCIENCE,
BLACK EASTER, DAY AFTER JUDGEMENT, and DOCTOR MIRABILIS, which Ford
described as "a novel about Bacon"--it took some clarification from
me to explain that he meant *Roger* Bacon, not bacon as in "bacon
and eggs"!)
- Carr, J. H., anything (Green)
- Cover, Arthur Byron, AN EAST WIND COMING (far future Sherlock
Holmes pastiche of sorts)
- Davidson, Avram, ON THE EIGHTH DAY (written as Ellery Queen) (Ford)
- Davies, L. P., anything (Titles include THE ARTIFICIAL MAN,
DIMENSION A, PSYCHOGEIST, and THE TWILIGHT JOURNEY) (Green)
- De Angulo, Jaime, anything (part of Jack Kerouac's crowd, I
believe)
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 15
- Ehrlich, Leonard, GOD'S ANGRY MAN (novel based on the life of John
Brown) (Bisson)
- Gibbons, Floyd P., RED NAPOLEON: A NOVEL (Ford)
- Guin, Wayman, A STANDING JOY (Green)
- Hodgson, William Hope, THE HOUSE ON THE BORDERLAND
- Holland, Cecelia, historical fiction, THE DEATH OF ATTILA THE HUN
(These hardly seem obscure to me.) (Bisson)
- Jakes, John, MENTION MY NAME IN ATLANTIS
- Klise, Thomas, THE LAST WESTERN
- Lafferty, R. A., OKLA HANNALI (Bisson)
- Lafferty, R. A., THE FALL OF ROME (Ford)
- Langguth, A. J., JESUS CHRISTS
- Lymington, John, anything (Titles include THE COMING OF THE
STRANGERS, FROOMBR, THE GREY ONES, THE NIGHT SPIDERS, THE NIGHT OF
THE BIG HEAT, THE SCREAMING FACE, and THE SWORD ABOVE THE NIGHT.)
(Green)
- McKenna, Richard, CASEY AGONISTES
- Maclean, Katherine, anything (Titles include THE DIPLOIDS, THE
MISSING MAN, and THE TROUBLE WITH YOU EARTH PEOPLE.)
- Mitchison, Naomi, TO THE CHAPEL PERILOUS (The description made it
sound a bit like PBS's "Timeline," but Ford claims it is not.)
(Ford)
- Morgan, Dan, THE NEW MINDS, THE SEVERAL MINDS, MIND TRAP, and THE
COUNTRY OF THE MIND (The latter is the fourth book of the series,
but printed only in England.) (Hummel)
- Serafini, Luigi, CODEX SERAPHINIANUS (This is more an art book--
there are no words in any known language in it.)
- Silverberg, Robert, A TIME OF CHANGES
- Smith, Martin Cruz, THE INDIANS WON (This is an alternate history
that I have been looking for--Books in Print claims it is still in
print, but I have my doubts.) (Bisson)
- Sobel, Robert, FOR WANT OF A NAIL (my recommendation--an alternate
history written as a history book, complete with footnotes and
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 16
bibliography, all fake!)
- Tevis, Walter, THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT and other works (Bisson)
- Thomas, D. M., ARARAT, THE FLUTE PLAYER, SPHINX, SWALLOW, and THE
WHITE HOTEL and others (Green)
- Waltari, Mika, THE EGYPTIAN, THE ETRUSCAN (Green)
- Wilhelm, Kate (?), LET THE FIRE FALL (I could not find any such
novel written by Kate Wilhelm, but Michael Scanlan has one of this
title. Given Green's track record, this is probably it.) (Green)
- Wilson, Steve, THE LOST TRAVELER (a novel about Hell's Angels) (Or
should this be Steve Toth's LOST ANGELS? With Green you never can
tell!) (Green)
- Wylie, Philip, everything (again, this does not seem all that
obscure) (Titles include THE DISAPPEARANCE, THE END OF THE DREAM,
GLADIATOR, LOS ANGELES AD 2017, THE MURDERER INVISIBLE, THE
SMUGGLED ATOM BOMB, THE SPY WHO SPOKE PORPOISE, TOMORROW, and
TRIUMPH,. I doubt that they were really recommending WHEN WORLDS
COLLIDE or AFTER WORLDS COLLIDE, but who knows?)
- FORGOTTEN FANTASY magazine (Green)
Hummel, a librarian, reminded people that even if their own library
did not have some of these items, they could request an inter-library
loan by asking their librarian. It was observed that in small towns you
might have to explain this concept.
Bisson (I believe) mentioned the "No-Frills" books marketed a few
years back, and told who had written them. The mystery was written by
Clark Daman (spelling?), the western by Victor Milan, and the science
fiction by John Silbersack. So now you finally know.
The Literacy Crisis vs. the Information Explosion
Teresa Nielsen-Hayden (moderator),
Alexander Jablokov, Kathei Logue.
Sunday, 4:00 PM
Kathei Logue talked about her experiences working in a shelter for
the homeless. Children there may start out interested in reading, but
pretty soon they discover that they can get by without it, and having no
incentive, they just stop.
Someone in the audience said they thought the problem (never
defined, by the way) was that students were never held back in schools.
The panelists pointed out that the current education system is not
structured in such a way as to make this feasible. Everyone did seem to
agree that the major factor was the student/teacher ratio.
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 17
On another level, this question was raised as to whether the state
could compel people to read, or rather to learn to read. And for that
matter, should it? One audience member put forth John Holt's theory
that the compulsory school system is a prison, and that students realize
that discipline is more important to the administrators than learning
is. In this, Holt of course assumes that children understand the
education process and could make rational decisions regarding it and
that parents care about their children's education. Holt was promoting
home teaching--which is an option to the "compulsory" education system
he decried, but very few parents are dissatisfied enough with the latter
to undertake it.
When someone asked the panelists about the information explosion,
Teresa Nielsen-Hayden asked, "May I rant to that question?" She thinks
most people lack the necessary skills to deal with this explosion. At
this point, the panel seemed to drift into complaining about how few
people had the necessary skills or training to be a reference librarian,
rather than to be an informed reader. The fact that people are starting
to call any book a "novel" ("Do you have any novels on spectroscopy?")
makes me think the latter is a bigger problem than the former. (See
also my caveat on recommending anthologies, above.) One audience member
seemed to think all this information on a topic could be filtered easily
enough by going to the college bookstore and buying the cheapest
"required reading" paperback on a given topic. The logic is that the
only books printed in paperback are those that are expected to sell a
lot, the cheaper paperbacks are expected to sell even more, and if it is
required at least there is some guarantee of quality (or that the author
is teaching the course!). Of course, this just says to let the
professors do the pre-filtering for you.
One aspect of the information explosion is that we do not lose
books through attrition anymore. Libraries and all the microfilm, and
other technologies for saving information have resulted in many books
being permanently saved which in earlier times would have gradually
disappeared. Paper disintegrates and when saving books was more
difficult, there was some minimum quality requirement for a book to meet
before someone would bother to save it. Now everything is saved "just
in case."
As one person said, if reading is the map to knowledge, we now need
a meta-map to *what* to read, and then perhaps a meta-meta-map, ....
At 5 PM, we left, ate dinner at the Turkey Farm restaurant in New
Hampshire, then drove back to Amherst to drop Kate off, and then home,
arriving home about 1 AM. Connecticut was again foggy.
Other notable programming items that occurred without the benefit of my
attendance were:
Judging a Book by Page 117
The Senator from Elfland's Daughter: Why Is Fantasy Hung Up on
Monarchy?"
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 18
Towards a Readers' Lobby
Hacks Anonymous vs. the Art Police
Stopping Glaciers with Hot Words: The Awful Warning Novel
Is "Magic Realism" Just Spanish for "Literary Fantasy"
(I wanted to attend this, but it was one of those overlap
conflicts I complained about earlier.)
Alternative Narrative Structure and the New Spec Fic Underground
(This turned out to be the April Fool's joke panel. Kate went
and said that everyone talked very seriously about such works
in progress as someone's novel being written by putting one
word somewhere on each highway in the United States, and a
magazine devoted to being as large as possible so as kill as
many trees as possible to cause the United States to realize
how important reforestation was. She said that the panelists
said this magazine was available from Ziesing in the Dealers'
Room, but when she went in there, she overheard one of the
panelists explaining to Ziesing about the joke and asking him
to play along by saying he had them but they were sold out.)
Miscellaneous
Crowley and Disch were on several panels each. I was impressed
that Crowley also attended several panels that he was not on--how often
does one see that at a "normal" science fiction convention. All too
frequently, the Guest of Honor seems to hide in his/her hotel room when
his/her presence is not required. Readercon Guests of Honor, on the
other hand, have been very willing to spend time as participants as well
as "stars." Crowley also had a scheduled autograph session, but was
certainly willing to sign at other times as well.
Some of the committee organizers still seem to be over-extending
themselves (Eric Van was on six panels). Still, this seems to create
fewer problems than in previous years, and Eric mentioned that they had
gotten three to six new committee members this year. Perhaps also the
multiple tracks mean that a hitch in one program item is not as
noticeable.
Unlike last year, program items tended to stay on time (except for
the Saturday night events as noted). The Souvenir Book gets bigger each
year, this year including several articles about the Guests of Honor, as
well as recommended books by various authors. I do not particularly
like this feature in THE NEW YORK SCIENCE FICTION REVIEW. Here at least
some of the authors write a paragraph or so on each book, which tells me
a lot more than the list format used in NYSFR. Unfortunately, the Small
Press Awards nominations were finished so late that the finalists could
not be listed in the Souvenir Book, and ended up relegated to the
Program Guide instead. The Program Guide included a copy of the Pocket
Program plus full descriptions of the program items, an index to
participants (with computerized schedules this seems to be becoming a
standard for Program Books, and a welcome one it is!), and information
about the Small Press Awards and the program participants. They
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 19
improved the type faces on the badges this year, though they are still
not up to Boskone's readability.
There was also a "Readercon anthology" published, priced at $9.95
for a trade paperback. To keep the price down, the cover had no
artwork, just the title and the names of the contributors in black and
white. If NESFA can do a hardcover book with dust jacket artwork for
$8, why is this priced so much higher?
There were 471 people registered, with about 400 of those actually
attending. The Readercon history is therefore:
center;
l l l l
l r r r.
YEAR REGISTERED ATTENDING % INCREASE ATTENDING
1987 330 280 -
1988 350 300 7
1990 471 400 33
If this trend continues, Readercon 10 will be held in the entire
states of New York and Pennsylvania!
Last year the furthest attendees came from California and Utah;
this year the prize obviously goes to Robert Hood and his family, who
came from New South Wales, Australia! (His book, DAY-DREAMING ON
COMPANY TIME, was nominated for a Small Press Award and he said this
provided him an excuse, since he had wanted to come to the United States
anyway. Eric Van, co-chair of the Awards Committee, said he almost fell
off his chair when he got the letter from Hood saying he was coming!)
Miscellaneous
Next year's Readercon will be July 12-14, 1991, at the Worcester
Marriott (the Lowell Hilton either went bankrupt, or almost went
bankrupt, I am not sure which). All the function space will be on one
floor in the Marriott, which should help out in terms of handicapped
access. Amazingly enough, Readercon 5 will be basically the same
weekend in 1992 (July 10-12). Does this mean that Readercon will
actually become an *annual* convention?! Stay tuned, but Eric says that
is what they are aiming for! The Guest of Honor next year will be
Thomas M. Disch, with Special Guest John Crowley. I commented to Eric
that this might result in some of this year's members skipping next
year, since the guests would be the same, but he says there will also be
another, as yet unannounced, Guest of Honor, and future Readercons will
continue to have two Guests of Honor each. He also promises *not* to
stagger programming starting times! Friday night they will be trying a
Meet the Pros(e) Pool Party, which should be fun even if the pros are
there yet. There will probably be a banquet (first rock 'n' roll, then
films, now rubber chicken!). (In fairness, I should add that Eric says
the Marriott's food has a good reputation, but the only really good
Readercon 3 April 13, 1990 Page 20
banquet I have ever been to was the crab feast as ConStellation.)
Because of the rapid growth of Readercon, they are setting an 800-
person limit (including complimentary memberships to guests, etc.) to
future Readercons.
Eric promised that after 1992 they will retire the Kirk Poland Bad
Prose Competition, but I am not holding my breath--they have been
promising to retire it for a couple of years now.
|