posted
What does the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America association stand for and what does the association mean to and do for you?
The principle upon which the association founded is represent fantasy and science fiction writers' interests: promote, lobby, and litigate on behalf and at the behest of its membership and all fantasy and science fiction writer professionals and ascendant and aspirant amateurs. Period. The association is akin to a labor trade union, though without the collective bargaining powers and legislation-influenced backdrops unions possess.
The association also administers two related flagships, the Nebula awards and its publication The Bulletin. The success and effectiveness of the Nebulas generally meet expectations. The Bulletin falls short of what an association's flagship publication is expected to do: Publish information relevant to the membership and its relations.
The Bulletin publishes how-tos and similar analytical essay content yet overlooks notable industry and fantasy and science fiction, relevant prose, overall, publication culture news and current events. Missed entirely news about arts' public legislation debates in progress, for example.
At times, The Bulletin has been a soap-box platform for narrow opinion commentary and editorials that offended many members. Newsworthy content best be, as Sergeant Joe Friday of the Dragnet situation drama said, "Just the facts." Opinion editorials best be balanced and impartial, due to SFWA's culture and membership base potential is as diverse and multicultural as the settings, milieus, and personas which the genres portray. All kinds, in other words, not one single, insistent faction's projected musts and must nots believed the only "proper" culture course for all.
The Bulletin, best practice, avoids any and all conflicts of interest, therefore, no original prose publications; memento and memorial reprints of writers long since passed into grace, maybe. Likewise, none of any writer publication notices or promotions, success stories, or awards not part of the Nebulas. Obituary notices, yes.
The Bulletin's focus of late has evolved and centered around craft topics, to the good, for craft method and process analytics that benefit writers' skill growth. As such, those topics emulate literary journal content, absent particular writer or singular narrative critical analyses, which would also be a conflict of interest: promote a given individual or work at the expense of others missed. What a firestorm would result if some were promoted and others not. A writers' trade association, best practice, promotes none or all. Impossible, given resource constraints, to promote all individually; therefore, promote all generically, of which The Bulletin and the association lost sight.
Part literary journal, part news bulletin, part culture representation; that is, facets that market, lobby, litigate, promote, package, publicize, and advertise fantasy and science fiction culture to the public, these are The Bulletin and the association's true missions, functions, and purposes. Get back around to it, please.
Never mind the popularity declines since the mid-1950s' heydays. Yes, revenues and intellectual capital and discretionary entertainment budget revenues drifted away, siphoned off, and fled -- as crime investigators would -- followed the money to competitor entertainment channels: television, movie theater, now Digital aural-visual content access. Plus, electronic publication avenue access now means anyone can publish for little or no cost, save the effort and time expended, new-age vanity publication, and obviates critical screener and gatekeeper impediments, to the detriments of artistic and mechanical caliber and merit, of writers, editors, screeners, agents, publishers, and readers' detriments, too.
Several fantasy and science fiction digests of that time enjoyed half a million-plus copy circulation, nowadays, at best, in the ten or twenty thousand copy range. Two thousand or so electronic impressions is now considered a break-even benchmark for digital digests. Five hundred or so for self-published works. Where did the audience go? Chalk some up to competition, yeah -- well, all of it to competition. The competition captivated the intellectual capital and revenue: writers, producers, editors, publishers, agents, yada; and the royalties and the audience.
What are fantasy and science fiction folk to do against such monumental competition? Package superior content, produce competitive work, bring back home the wayward audience refugees, write mainstream equivalent or superior narratives and analyses and promote and represent same.
For me, SFWA's standout activity is the several workshop and craft essays and such the online site hosts and archives. You-all know the ones: The Clarion Glossary, The Turkey City Lexicon, and Myrtle the Manuscript, plus others not as often cited per moi, and the Writer Beware notices, advices, business tips, and such.
I am not by nature a belonger. SFWA encourages membership participation in its mission activities and correspondence between members and fans. My misgiving about SFWA membership is the one that gives me most cause for pause in this Digital Age: escalated privacy invasion potentials. Hence, not gonna join, though inclined to do my small due influence piece from an anonymous background stance, which is my true nature -- extrinsic.
posted
I've been reading a lot of interviews and articles from industry professionals saying how disappointed they are in the quality of writing being put out.
They say a lot of this shoddy work has helped to contribute to lower reading levels and interest.
I guess its an age-old fact of life, there are always those who use shortcuts to get ahead.
I guess when I first started out all I wanted to see was my work in print, now that I've been in print, I now worry about its quality and message.
Not in a rush for SFWA, though one day I wouldn't mind winning a Nebula.
posted
Cross generational and cultural gripes separated from genuine dissatisfaction for a state of circumstances and how one's own situational awareness growth might escalate acuity and insight. Is writing quality actually different now than some past era?
Dad noted, for example, the people are usually oblivious to government political culture, until circumstances negatively affect an individual or group. The individual or group then gets informed -- maybe -- and takes action, informed or otherwise. As writer, editor, publisher, and student and scholar, I've had my gripe occasions, yet now appreciate those are mine alone, regardless of anyone else's misgivings and shared or contrary gripes. A difficult life lesson learned.
Overall, I do believe writing quality as a whole has not declined, rather, become more democratic, that is, less stratified, that more of classes and individuals who previously had little, if any, access to publication culture now do have points of access. The degree of literacy distribution curve overall has not much changed since the late nineteenth century. Only, of late, more hypoliterate individuals are involved and out in the marketplace, and that metric more fully reflects the literacy curve than prior to the anyone-anymore-can-publish-whatever explosion, and meantime, the number of active publishers also exploded.
Another influence factor is outlets and channels' increased competition for the intellectual capital of hyperliterates' creative properties and consequent settling occasions for less literate producers' properties. If a publication market's status is lower than another, its available property inventory caliber and writer stable and writer ability is likewise lower status. That, in turn, influences where a floor and ceiling caliber sets the market's status and the ambitions and abilities of its property producers: writers, for example. Plus, editors and publishers, etc., and its market's consumer base.
Each distinguishable publication culture metric, includes the supply and demand Bell curve, anymore, more or less democratically aligns to the overall literacy distribution curve. Whatever anyone else does, to one's own self be attentive and true, be creative, write the best narratives one is able and, all the while, strive for greater heights to stay relevant and ahead of the self's audience. The rest will do as they do regardless. That'll show 'em all.
posted
I used to pay attention to SFWA, and would have happily joined once Sufficiently Official. Then they wandered off into the political weeds, and now I wouldn't touch 'em with a ten pound tome.
posted
Several nondiscretionary grammar errors throughout the Guild's site pages and documents.
One repeated misapprehension in the mission statement pages about science fiction and fantasy culture: Though the Guild avows and avers political abstinence and affirms apolitical activity, the commentary misses that science fiction and fantasy express social-political commentary, especially of social-moral values and beliefs, which the political abstinence and apolitical affirmation are a political position that asserts fantastic fiction is apolitical and amoral. The Guild's mission statement also singles out several express lifestyle political positions for exclusion.
Nope. Like all of the literary opus, fantastic fiction is omni- and multicultural and satire, regardless of whether humorous, farcical, sober serious, macabre, or whatever, no matter the creative expression caliber. The fantastic social sciences facet of "soft" science fiction, for instance, and often contained in physical science "hard" science fiction, too, portrays patent satire motifs. Fantasy's folk tale and folklore origins founded upon moral pageantry tableaus and continued thereatfer. Again, satire depicts human vice and folly, human morality, that is, or degree of or lack of sapience, actually. Science fiction and fantasy absent any satire aspects cannot fulfill social entertainment and social commentary functions, nor meet minimum appeal expectations.
Maybe if the Guild's mission is to represent fantastic genre culture from an associational and apolitical stance, all to the good. However, any misapprehensions the genres and their producers themselves are apolitical is a minefield to be at least defused, if not protected from, and prepared for in advance.
Hatrack's rules and policies go a long way toward prevention of harmful political squabbles here and do much to mitigate such political soap-box grandstander mischiefs.
Like writing workshop rules overall, address the writing and, through the writing, express, imply, intimate personal values and beliefs; do not address nor attack writers thereof; best practice do address the human condition through prose's dramatic entertainment and satire expression appeals; best practice do not promote and glorify the morally questionable and challengeable opinion politics of individuals and groups thereof, except ironically; best do show moral truth discoveries; best do not tell, lecture, preach, or impose moral laws, except ironically; elsewise, hypocrisy attaches.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
