SFWA Bulletin 202: A more general review
Jun. 3rd, 2013 09:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marinessThe last issue of the SFWA Bulletin was mailed out to SFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) members last week, and has, to put it mildly, generated a bit of a stink, even going so far as to become a trending topic on Twitter until tornadoes hit Oklahoma City again. Most of the outcry has focused on an article by Mike Resnick and Barry Malzburg. Other people have written about this more eloquently than I can. A related but significant point is that the organization spends a fairly significant part of its annual budget on the Bulletin, and that its articles are solicited and paid for. This being the internet, various comments were also made about squid and were-badgers. [1]
John Scalzi, the current president of SFWA (Steven Gould does not replace him until July) has issued a reply explaining the background. With this, I hope the organization can move forward.
Overlooked in all the uproar about the column was another question: how well did the rest of the Bulletin meet its mission?
Let's find out!
The mission of the SFWA Bulletin is clearly stated on page two of the publication.
1. "To inform SFWA members and subscribers of activity within the publishing industry, ranging from advertising to interviews, and from market reports to personnel changes."
Let's see.
Exactly one article in the entire Summer 2013 Bulletin, the Market Report, appears to address this point. In its second paragraph, we learn that Cemetery Dance is temporary closed to fiction submissions (this happened in January 2013), Redstone Science Fiction is on indefinite hiatus (this happened in September 2012), and that Phantom Drift is currently closed to submissions (their website states that they are currently open to submissions.) So that's helpful.
The Market Report also contains a long listing for New Diabolic Publications, but includes only one of two of their anthology projects currently accepting submissions; Black Gate Magazine; GigaNotoSaurus; HeroesandHeartbreakers.com; Penumbra; War World: The Patriotic Wars; and a note that Tor UK is now taking unagented submissions, along with submissions guidelines. Tor UK made this announcement in January.
And that's it for "activity within the publishing industry."
Entirely missing is any information about the following: the Penguin/Random House merger (old news by now, but three issues have gone by without a mention); the demise of Night Shade Publications; the war between Simon and Schuster and Barnes and Noble; sales figures for the Kindle Fire, Apple iPad, Nook and other devices; the decision by the major publishers to settle with the Department of Justice (granted, old news by this point, but see above); any information on how many science fiction/fantasy books the major and independent publishers are publishing this year; any discussion of Amazon; any discussion of issues with ebooks and libraries; or any of the other myriad publishing news tidbits that I may have missed.
So, this seems to be a failure. Next!
2. "To provide...articles of specific interest and advice about practical aspects of the writing profession, including topics such as copyright, finances, and changing conditions of the industry."
Yay! This one should be covered, right?
...or maybe not.
One article, "Words for Hire – Estate Planning," does definitely fit these guidelines and is not incidentally one of only two articles in this issue to receive praise from members.
Some of the other articles arguably fit into Mission Part Two (although more probably into the third part, see below): "Say the Secret Word," by a copywriter who currently works for "Sitewire, a firm specializing in marketing and advertising versus social media"; "How to Pitch Your Fiction at a Pitchfest," by a former studio executive for MGM Pictures; and "Agent Anonymous – Finding a Good Fit." [2]
Thing is, these three articles all seem to be addressing completely different audiences. Both "Agent Anonymous" and "Say the Secret Word" appear to be aimed at newbie, unpublished writers (and the second also has the feel more of a rant than advice, but moving on). The Pitchfest article is for aspiring screenwriters going to their first Pitchfests. Obviously, there's some overlap here, and some of the advice in the Pitchfest article is equally valid for aspiring novelists going to cons, so yay.
But. To have these three more "newbie" articles in the same publication as an estate planning article which assumes that its readers have an extensive and complicated publication history gives a rather whiplash effect, and a sense that the publication, as a whole, lacks focus. In addition, active SFWA members are, for the most part, not newbie writers. Many of the people receiving this in the mail are active, successful, screenwriters.
Also oddly, outside of the estate planning article, the rest of the Bulletin is silent on the first thing it lists as a practical concern for writers: copyright.
Copyright is a huge, huge issue right now for writers. And I mean huge. The United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is about to start looking at U.S. copyright law, since about the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that it needs to be tweaked. I don't see any agreement on how. This includes issues of fair use, international copyrights, what exactly the United States should or should not be doing to defend copyrights abroad (an extremely contentious issue that I see no agreement on whatsoever), fanfiction, digital copies, online piracy, estate law, defense of copyright versus trademark and a lot of other issues that I'm forgetting. (Fanfiction in particular could benefit from a better dialogue on this.) Adding to the issue is the question of what, exactly, we mean by United States versus international rights in the internet age.
None of this was discussed in the Bulletin. It's important.
So, mission one, failed. Mission two, half successful. Mission three...
3. "To stimulate constructive debate about the literature of science fiction and fantasy, by publishing thought-provoking articles and essays on subjects of interest to writers and others in the publishing industry."
...ok, I think we can agree that "debate" was achieved here. Go Mission Three!
But I would much rather see us, as an organization, focus on business controversies: self-publish that difficult to place novel, or try for the small press? Numbers, figures, sales? What's up with those Bookscan numbers? How reliable are they? What algorithms is Amazon using to create those "suggested sales" lists and how can writers take advantage of this? On a lighter note, is paranormal romance here to stay, or will it vanish in ten years? Whatever else anyone can say about the Dialogue column, it wasn't a business controversy.
Also arguably in this category was "Peabody's Improbable Archery." This was one of two articles in the issue to receive praise from members (the other was the estate planning article). It's an amusing rant on how fantasy movies and novels, Hunger Games aside, so often get the archery wrong, written by someone who makes her own bows and clearly knows her stuff, so, bonus. Lots of SFWA members write or publish fiction that features archery, so, double bonus.
Minus just one or two points for the article's very informal tone and use of the word "boobs" instead of "breasts" – a tone that would have been perfectly appropriate for a blog post of for most other publications, but possibly not for a supposedly professional publication representing SFWA, particularly given that the last two issues had come under criticism for their portrayal of women. What's frustrating about this is that the article needed only some very light editing to avoid those issues.
The other article in this category was a very long article about teaching science fiction creative writing classes. Given the number of SFWA members who also teach, or may be asked to teach, I thought this was fine.
So mission three, accomplished. Let's look at mission four.
4. "To inform the publishing community at large of SFWA's activities and important events, including the Nebula Awards and the election of officers."
Half right here. The Bulletin did an excellent job with the Nebula nominees, providing space for the nominees to discuss their work, as well as a nice tribute to Gene Wolfe, recently named as a SFWA Grand Master.
SFWA election results? Entirely missing from this publication. Other SFWA activities? Also missing.
The election results were announced on May 3, before the Nebula Awards were announced on May 19th. The Bulletin did have time to bold the names of winning nominees; I don't, however, know when the Nebula votes were tabulated, and it's possible that the Bulletin editors had early information. My issue arrived on May 30.
#
So, mission one, not met. Mission two, half met. Mission three....met, but not in a way that made many people happy, and partly met through two articles of interest to only a portion of the membership. Mission four, half met. [3]
So, to sum up, we can say that the Bulletin is barely meeting its own stated publication goals. And this, I think, is also a problem. And a problem that arguably led right to this situation: had the Bulletin focused on points one and two, it would not have had room for the article that has generated such controversy and unwelcome attention. [4]
We can probably draw some overall life lesson from that, though with the caveat that sometimes goals and missions have to be changed. But I don't see a problem with the Bulletin's stated mission, just the delivery.
So to answer the question of what do to about the Bulletin: Just have it follow its own stated goals, and I think we'll be fine.
#
Finally, I've been asked whether or not I'll be staying in SFWA. The answer is yes. The Bulletin isn't the only thing SFWA does.
[1] Which on a lighter note also temporarily led to me getting, and I am not making this up, spam about badgers and squid. Ah, internet.
[2] I suppose Jim Hines' "Cover Art and the Radical Notion That Women Are People" fits into the "changing conditions," but this is more an essay arguing for changes in cover art than an article noting that these changes are in fact happening.
[3] This is all leaving aside the slight problem that the Bulletin also featured writers telling us about what it felt to get an Edgar or a National Book Award, both awesome, prestigious awards for different fields.
[4] I'm not by any means advocating for silencing anyone, or saying that Resnick and Malzburg shouldn't have had the opportunity to respond to what they saw as unwarranted attacks on them. But judging by the internet reactions, the Bulletin does not seem to have been the right place for any of these dialogues in the first place.
John Scalzi, the current president of SFWA (Steven Gould does not replace him until July) has issued a reply explaining the background. With this, I hope the organization can move forward.
Overlooked in all the uproar about the column was another question: how well did the rest of the Bulletin meet its mission?
Let's find out!
The mission of the SFWA Bulletin is clearly stated on page two of the publication.
1. "To inform SFWA members and subscribers of activity within the publishing industry, ranging from advertising to interviews, and from market reports to personnel changes."
Let's see.
Exactly one article in the entire Summer 2013 Bulletin, the Market Report, appears to address this point. In its second paragraph, we learn that Cemetery Dance is temporary closed to fiction submissions (this happened in January 2013), Redstone Science Fiction is on indefinite hiatus (this happened in September 2012), and that Phantom Drift is currently closed to submissions (their website states that they are currently open to submissions.) So that's helpful.
The Market Report also contains a long listing for New Diabolic Publications, but includes only one of two of their anthology projects currently accepting submissions; Black Gate Magazine; GigaNotoSaurus; HeroesandHeartbreakers.com; Penumbra; War World: The Patriotic Wars; and a note that Tor UK is now taking unagented submissions, along with submissions guidelines. Tor UK made this announcement in January.
And that's it for "activity within the publishing industry."
Entirely missing is any information about the following: the Penguin/Random House merger (old news by now, but three issues have gone by without a mention); the demise of Night Shade Publications; the war between Simon and Schuster and Barnes and Noble; sales figures for the Kindle Fire, Apple iPad, Nook and other devices; the decision by the major publishers to settle with the Department of Justice (granted, old news by this point, but see above); any information on how many science fiction/fantasy books the major and independent publishers are publishing this year; any discussion of Amazon; any discussion of issues with ebooks and libraries; or any of the other myriad publishing news tidbits that I may have missed.
So, this seems to be a failure. Next!
2. "To provide...articles of specific interest and advice about practical aspects of the writing profession, including topics such as copyright, finances, and changing conditions of the industry."
Yay! This one should be covered, right?
...or maybe not.
One article, "Words for Hire – Estate Planning," does definitely fit these guidelines and is not incidentally one of only two articles in this issue to receive praise from members.
Some of the other articles arguably fit into Mission Part Two (although more probably into the third part, see below): "Say the Secret Word," by a copywriter who currently works for "Sitewire, a firm specializing in marketing and advertising versus social media"; "How to Pitch Your Fiction at a Pitchfest," by a former studio executive for MGM Pictures; and "Agent Anonymous – Finding a Good Fit." [2]
Thing is, these three articles all seem to be addressing completely different audiences. Both "Agent Anonymous" and "Say the Secret Word" appear to be aimed at newbie, unpublished writers (and the second also has the feel more of a rant than advice, but moving on). The Pitchfest article is for aspiring screenwriters going to their first Pitchfests. Obviously, there's some overlap here, and some of the advice in the Pitchfest article is equally valid for aspiring novelists going to cons, so yay.
But. To have these three more "newbie" articles in the same publication as an estate planning article which assumes that its readers have an extensive and complicated publication history gives a rather whiplash effect, and a sense that the publication, as a whole, lacks focus. In addition, active SFWA members are, for the most part, not newbie writers. Many of the people receiving this in the mail are active, successful, screenwriters.
Also oddly, outside of the estate planning article, the rest of the Bulletin is silent on the first thing it lists as a practical concern for writers: copyright.
Copyright is a huge, huge issue right now for writers. And I mean huge. The United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is about to start looking at U.S. copyright law, since about the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that it needs to be tweaked. I don't see any agreement on how. This includes issues of fair use, international copyrights, what exactly the United States should or should not be doing to defend copyrights abroad (an extremely contentious issue that I see no agreement on whatsoever), fanfiction, digital copies, online piracy, estate law, defense of copyright versus trademark and a lot of other issues that I'm forgetting. (Fanfiction in particular could benefit from a better dialogue on this.) Adding to the issue is the question of what, exactly, we mean by United States versus international rights in the internet age.
None of this was discussed in the Bulletin. It's important.
So, mission one, failed. Mission two, half successful. Mission three...
3. "To stimulate constructive debate about the literature of science fiction and fantasy, by publishing thought-provoking articles and essays on subjects of interest to writers and others in the publishing industry."
...ok, I think we can agree that "debate" was achieved here. Go Mission Three!
But I would much rather see us, as an organization, focus on business controversies: self-publish that difficult to place novel, or try for the small press? Numbers, figures, sales? What's up with those Bookscan numbers? How reliable are they? What algorithms is Amazon using to create those "suggested sales" lists and how can writers take advantage of this? On a lighter note, is paranormal romance here to stay, or will it vanish in ten years? Whatever else anyone can say about the Dialogue column, it wasn't a business controversy.
Also arguably in this category was "Peabody's Improbable Archery." This was one of two articles in the issue to receive praise from members (the other was the estate planning article). It's an amusing rant on how fantasy movies and novels, Hunger Games aside, so often get the archery wrong, written by someone who makes her own bows and clearly knows her stuff, so, bonus. Lots of SFWA members write or publish fiction that features archery, so, double bonus.
Minus just one or two points for the article's very informal tone and use of the word "boobs" instead of "breasts" – a tone that would have been perfectly appropriate for a blog post of for most other publications, but possibly not for a supposedly professional publication representing SFWA, particularly given that the last two issues had come under criticism for their portrayal of women. What's frustrating about this is that the article needed only some very light editing to avoid those issues.
The other article in this category was a very long article about teaching science fiction creative writing classes. Given the number of SFWA members who also teach, or may be asked to teach, I thought this was fine.
So mission three, accomplished. Let's look at mission four.
4. "To inform the publishing community at large of SFWA's activities and important events, including the Nebula Awards and the election of officers."
Half right here. The Bulletin did an excellent job with the Nebula nominees, providing space for the nominees to discuss their work, as well as a nice tribute to Gene Wolfe, recently named as a SFWA Grand Master.
SFWA election results? Entirely missing from this publication. Other SFWA activities? Also missing.
The election results were announced on May 3, before the Nebula Awards were announced on May 19th. The Bulletin did have time to bold the names of winning nominees; I don't, however, know when the Nebula votes were tabulated, and it's possible that the Bulletin editors had early information. My issue arrived on May 30.
#
So, mission one, not met. Mission two, half met. Mission three....met, but not in a way that made many people happy, and partly met through two articles of interest to only a portion of the membership. Mission four, half met. [3]
So, to sum up, we can say that the Bulletin is barely meeting its own stated publication goals. And this, I think, is also a problem. And a problem that arguably led right to this situation: had the Bulletin focused on points one and two, it would not have had room for the article that has generated such controversy and unwelcome attention. [4]
We can probably draw some overall life lesson from that, though with the caveat that sometimes goals and missions have to be changed. But I don't see a problem with the Bulletin's stated mission, just the delivery.
So to answer the question of what do to about the Bulletin: Just have it follow its own stated goals, and I think we'll be fine.
#
Finally, I've been asked whether or not I'll be staying in SFWA. The answer is yes. The Bulletin isn't the only thing SFWA does.
[1] Which on a lighter note also temporarily led to me getting, and I am not making this up, spam about badgers and squid. Ah, internet.
[2] I suppose Jim Hines' "Cover Art and the Radical Notion That Women Are People" fits into the "changing conditions," but this is more an essay arguing for changes in cover art than an article noting that these changes are in fact happening.
[3] This is all leaving aside the slight problem that the Bulletin also featured writers telling us about what it felt to get an Edgar or a National Book Award, both awesome, prestigious awards for different fields.
[4] I'm not by any means advocating for silencing anyone, or saying that Resnick and Malzburg shouldn't have had the opportunity to respond to what they saw as unwarranted attacks on them. But judging by the internet reactions, the Bulletin does not seem to have been the right place for any of these dialogues in the first place.