renewal
As I sit at my desk in the swelter of July, I have before me the form to renew my membership in the Science Fiction And Fantasy Writers of America <sfwa.org>. The cost for a year of active membership is currently seventy dollars. I should note that there is also an associate membership for new writers who have racked up just one professional sale, but are on their way to Grandmasterdom. Now I have been getting this renewal form every summer for almost thirty years and I have never once hesitated to cut the check. You see, back when I was an aspiring writer attending the Clarion Writers Workshop <http://clarion.ucsd.edu>, my mentors gave me two pieces of sage career advice: I was to subscribe to Locus <locusmag.com> immediately and join SFWA as soon as I qualified. It’s advice I still give now that I find myself mentoring new writers.
And yet, in the last year, there has been serious criticism of SFWA from both within and without. Some well-published writers believe that it continues to be too easy to join SFWA and that it has long since ceased to be a professional writers’ organization. Other members worry about the raucous-verging-on-toxic tone of the arguments that take place from time to time in SFWA forums, some public like SFWA’s livejournal blog <http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa> and some private, like SFF Net’s <sff.net> SFWA Lounge. Meanwhile there is a clutch of new writers who have declared that SFWA is largely irrelevant to their careers. And some who are exploring the many digital alternatives to traditional dead tree publishing are convinced that the powers that be in SFWA have their heads in a hole. I have even come across net-savvy writers who believe that Howard Hendrix’s Pixel Stained Technopeasant rant <http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa/10039.html>, which we considered in the last installment, was official SFWA policy. This despite the fact that Howard made it clear he was speaking for himself only.
pros
Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I’m going to write that check once again, despite SFWA’s flaws. Why? I won’t dwell on those services SFWA offers to writers that are of little interest to readers of ’Mov’s, other than to note that we have a committee that harries unscrupulous publishers and agents and, over the years, we have amassed emergency funds earmarked to help members in legal or medical crisis. And of course, SFWA has stood with other writers’ organizations to oppose depredations on our rights by greedy publishing conglomerates.
Then there are the Nebula Awards <locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula.html>. It should come as no surprise that determining who gets the coveted chunk of Lucite has always been controversial. Even now, the easiest way to get a rise out of the average SFWAn is to point out the many inequities that persist in Nebulation process, despite years of tinkering with the rules. Nevertheless, while not every masterwork has been awarded the Nebula, the roster of winners is formidable; it compares very well with the corresponding list of Hugo <locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo.html> winners. And a nomination to the final Nebula ballot will land a story on the front page of the Asimov’s website, thus showcasing many up-and-coming writers to the readers of the world.
But I would especially like to draw your attention to the SFWA website <SFWA.org>, this being a column about the net, after all. Every SFWAn has an opinion about how our web presence might be best improved, but the fact remains that this is a truly amazing resource.
For example, consider Members Fiction Online <sfwa.org/fiction> a database of stories you can click, some of which are free and some of which you can read for a small fee. Or the comprehensive listing of Websites of Members <sfwa.org/links/members_a.htm>. You can peruse selected articles <sfwa.org/bulletin> from SFWA’s print magazine The Bulletin and get ideas for your next read from reading lists <sfwa.org/reading> suggested by prominent members. There is a modest page of News <sfwa.org/news> which, while not as comprehensive as that at Locus Online, often scoops other outlets, especially when the headlines have to do with SFWA. Of particular note is the Writer Beware page <sfwa.org/beware> “the public face of SFWA’s Committee on Writing Scams.” Not only do A.C. Crispin <accrispin.com> and Victoria Strauss <sff.net/people/victoriastrauss> explore the many ways the unwary can go wrong in seeking publication, they also name the names of those who seek to take unfair advantage of trusting writers.
However, it is as a compendium of advice on best practices in the craft and business of writing in the genres of the fantastic that the SFWA website excels. Click over to the Craft of Writing page <sfwa.org/writing> and you will find over sixty essays. Just a few of the highlights include a how-to on hard SF world building by Stephen Baxter <baxterium.org.uk> and an intro to fantasy world building by the late Poul Anderson <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poul_Anderson>. Vonda McIntyre <vondanmcintyre.com> shows you how to prepare a manuscript and C.J. Cherryh <cherryh.com> points out the mistakes of the lazy writer. And Lewis Shiner <lewisshiner.com> and Bruce Sterling <chriswaltrip.com/sterling> present the infamous Turkey City Lexicon. Meanwhile, over on the Business of Writing page <sfwa.org/contracts> there are model contracts for anthologies, agents, hard covers, magazines, paperbacks, and web publishing, which have been written as guides for anyone who wants to understand common publishing contracts with an eye to negotiating better one.
The content on SFWA’s site represents the collective wisdom of many of the genre’s best writers and deepest thinkers. That it is freely available speaks to that spirit of SFWA that no one could possibly criticize. For you see, SFWA is almost entirely run by volunteers who give generously of their time and share their experience for the greater good of science fiction and fantasy.
meet the prez
The spring of 2007 was something of a roller coaster ride for SFWA. John Scalzi <scalzi.com> surprised everybody in the organization by announcing that he was running for SFWA’s presidency—after the deadline for filing. His quixotic write-in candidacy gave a voice to those who worried that SFWA was stuck in publishing’s past and who were uncomfortable with what they perceived as the culture of the organization. Michael Capobianco <mysite.verizon.net/michaelcapobianco>, who had served as president from 1996-98, ran on a platform that emphasized his long experience in SFWA; he proposed more cautious change that would not over burden SFWA’s many volunteers. While the issues were aired by partisans in a very public and sometimes overheated debate, the two principals managed to keep their cool throughout. In the end, Michael won by a large margin. While I myself voted for John, I trust that Michael will do well by the organization. I invited him to assess the state of SFWA for us and he graciously agreed.
Do you agree that there is a perception that SFWA is irrelevant to some of the younger writers who have embraced the net?
Certainly among the most vocal of them. I think that, to some extent, the blogosphere has provided them an online community that has replaced more formal writers’ organizations like SFWA. This community offers an open forum and positive reinforcement, very valuable assets. What it doesn’t have is any formal mechanism for establishing goals or working for them because it’s so amorphous.
If so, is that perception at all justified?
We have to distinguish between the idealized SFWA and SFWA-that-is. Because of a shortage of volunteers and lack of infrastructure and continuity, SFWA isn’t nearly as effective as it could be, and it’s easy to see the cracks that form as the organization’s resources are stretched to the breaking point. It seems some times that the younger writers are more aware of the internal problems than the accomplishments. I think this is because, viewed from the outside, SFWA looks like a monolithic bastion of famous writers rather than the scrappy bunch of overworked volunteers that it is.
What can we do to change that perception?
I’m working on that right now. I predict that SFWA will change the perception by actually accomplishing things in the real world and providing members with the information they need to make informed decisions about their careers. If we do that, and make sure that our accomplishments don’t get buried under the noise, the perception will change. Part of that will be
to modernize and update our website, where there’s a wealth of good information for members and non-members alike.
There was plenty of public nastiness on view for all the net to ponder during the recent election for President of SFWA. I did think that you and John Scalzi seemed for the most part to keep to civility in the face of rampant rudeness. That being said: What made you run for president and should the possibility . . . um . . . certainty that they will suffer personal attacks dissuade candidates from running in the future?
Thanks, I didn’t find it difficult to be civil to John. I admire his ability to use the web as a promotional tool, and the hard work he’s put in to keep ahead of the game. I ran for president again because a) I retired from the USPS last year and have more time, and b) I think I can keep SFWA focused on accomplishing external goals. Finally, since I’ve done it before, I am conceited enough to think that I can keep the organization out of internally generated crises. It’s early days, but the primary thing we can do is to carefully focus on the issues and not the personalities. Last time I was president, I found one very effective technique that helped a lot—I apologized when I was wrong. Amazing what a little apology can accomplish.
exit
I have heard it said that getting science fiction writers to agree on anything is like herding cats. But even contrarians of the feline persuasion must find common cause from time to time. All of us who believe in SFWA wish Michael Capobianco the best in his capacity as chief cat wrangler.
