SFWA attempts to commit public suicide
This just isn't funny.
SFWA, the Science Fiction Writers of America, an organisation of which I am a member (on account of my having just a slight interest in writing and selling SF in that country) managed to get into a huge public relations mess back in August/September, when Dr. Andrew Burt, acting on his own initiative as a member of the SFWA e-piracy committee, caused a major screw-up in dealing with Scribd, a text file sharing website. (Details on the whole debacle start here; for SFWA's response see here: more here: if you really want to know everything, Google is your friend.)
One thing led to another in rapid order, including: the disbanding of the epiracy committee, the formation of a new internal committee to report back to the executive on what SFWA ought to be doing about copyright, and much internal politicking.
Confession of interest: I let myself be sweet-talked into participating in the copyright exploratory committee, along with various other members. Our remit was to focus on what SFWA should do in future about members' copyrights; we prepared a report in due course, and presented it to the executive.
The core of our report, in a nutshell, was this: SFWA should represent its members interests when asked to do so. (It should also poll the membership to figure out what they want to do.) In order to deal with members asking SFWA to act against copyright infringements, SFWA should establish a new copyright advisory committee to replace of the piracy committee, with set procedures (and a quorum of members required to implement them) to avoid anything like the earlier debacle recurring.
In addition, we made various other recommendations. (Mine included: avoid, at all costs, emulating the activities of the RIAA and MPAA. Rule #1 of being a professional writer should be: your fans are Not The Enemy. Unlike RIAA or MPAA, SFWA is actually a loose trade association of content producers — RIAA and MPAA are rather different organisms, funded by a cartel of major content distributors. Following their example would not only be disastrous and make enemies — I trust I don't have to explain why — but would rapidly bring individual writers into disrepute with their readers, something I think most SFWA members have enough brain cells to realize would be disastrous.)
A further recommendation was discussed, but the general feeling was that it would be inappropriate to put it in the committee's formal report. It was my understanding that it would be brought to the attention of the president of SFWA via a back channel. This recommendation was simple: that at all costs, Andrew Burt must be kept the hell away from the copyright committee. In view of his earlier activities, his appointment to it would automatically destroy any credibility the new body would have — not to mention sending out a clear signal that SFWA is a dysfunctional organization, institutionally incapable of learning from bad experiences.
Guess what's happened?
Yup. I am not privy to his thinking, but our dear president and executive have voted to reinstate the old piracy committee, with Andrew Burt to chair it, under the new name of the SFWA copyright committee.
To say that this is a fuckwitted decision is an understatement. Under Dr Burt, the new copyright committee will almost inevitably devolve into a reincarnation of the old piracy committee. If I thought it'd do any good I'd be resigning in protest right now; only the expense of a life membership purchased a couple of years ago is restraining me right now. Clearly the current executive of SFWA is making damaging decisions and ignoring input from committees it appointed, and and in view of this I call on SFWA president Mike Capobianco and the rest of the SFWA executive — including Andrew Burt — to resign immediately. Meanwhile, I'd like to call on all other SFWA members who don't want to see their organization commit public relations suicide to make their voices heard.
As for my own role in the affair, I consider this to be a betrayal of trust. I've been used as a stalking-horse to legitimize a process I absolutely despise; I've put in a fair amount of work on a project that was clearly intended as a distraction and which has now been set aside and ignored by the man who commissioned it. I will not forget this — and the current SFWA executive should consider that cozening and lying to their own members is not usually considered best practice for representing the members' best interests.
Finally, I should like to thank Cory Doctorow, who warned me that this was likely to be the outcome of the process: he was, of course, absolutely right.
UPDATE
I've just been made aware that there's an interesting anomaly in SFWA's by-laws. The vice-president of SFWA is officially the head of committees, and it's their job to appoint or remove people from committees. Andrew Burt is, interestingly, the vice-president, and there's no mechanism to remove someone from a committee without going through the vice-president: consequently the only person who could act on our call to prevent him from having anything to do with the SFWA copyright committee was ... Andrew Burt.
I'd like to apologize unreservedly to Mike Capobianco, and retract my call for him to resign. (He's in a very tough spot on this one: he appears to be the victim of a bug in SFWA's by-laws.) On the other hand, my call for Andrew Burt to resign is now doubled. As far as I can tell, he bears sole responsibility for this mess.
Comments
Scalzi for SWFA President?
Posted by: Mark Atwood | November 30, 2007 12:55 AM
Sigh! Yes, they are dysfunctional, but don't resign. This reminds me of a Canadian editorial letter to U.S. citizens when Baby Bush was elected. In the U.S., when the election goes wrong, people always say they will move to Canada. This particular Canadian editor responded with a fantastic note that basically said that if everyone who opposed Bush moved to Canada, it would leave a horrendously conservative/right-wing country to their south with no dissenting voices.
SFWA needs dissenting voices, no matter how much they've already used you.
Posted by: cammykitty | November 30, 2007 1:05 AM
There has to be something psychological where the copyright issue always goes back to a situation where the old proponents are doing whatever it takes to make customers unhappy.... Maybe the feel more comfortable in this state, compared with this new world order where there's an interaction between the writers and the audience.
Posted by: Kent Sandvik | November 30, 2007 1:19 AM
Astonishing.
Posted by: Patrick Nielsen Hayden | November 30, 2007 2:09 AM
I'm dismayed and baffled.
Posted by: Mary Robinette Kowal | November 30, 2007 2:26 AM
So will that be you running to get rid of either Burt or Capo next time around then?
Because that is just beyond stupid.
Posted by: MatGB | November 30, 2007 2:26 AM
About all I can say: Meh.
Like Cory, I'm not surprised, but unlike the both of you, I'm not dismayed.
I don't think taking an internet megaphone to the problem is constructive, though.
Posted by: Deirdre Saoirse Moen | November 30, 2007 2:30 AM
Can't believe this. As I stated on my blog, this is another reason why I'm not joining the SFWA.
Posted by: Jason | November 30, 2007 2:46 AM
*Sigh*
Talk about being your own worst enemies *gentle sound of pounding one's head against the nearest wall*.
Charlie, thanks for trying.
Posted by: Laurie D. T. Mann | November 30, 2007 2:57 AM
*sigh* I frequently find SWFA's actions baffling. I always figured it was because I wasn't privy to its inner workings. Apparently not. Whenever SFWA does stuff like this, I wonder if I actually want to become a part of SFWA. (This is moot for now. I'm not eligible.)
At least the exploratory committee's recommendation are public. Thank you for coming up with a sane policy.
Posted by: John Chu | November 30, 2007 3:12 AM
What the hell?
I mean, really: What the hell?
I keep thinking SFWA will run out of bullets with which to shoot themselves in the foot, and then they go and buy a truckload of surface-to-foot missiles.
Posted by: Stephen Granade | November 30, 2007 3:15 AM
This just pisses me off. I'm not a very productive writer currently, and my day job is insane in the fall so I can't pay attention to any political stuff that isn't in shoved into my face.
Thank you for bringing it up, despite the fact it raises my blood pressure.
Posted by: Paula Helm Murray | November 30, 2007 3:32 AM
Burt's no big surprise--too many people really liked what he did, because he was as aggressive as they wanted him to be.
Posted by: Dave Klecha | November 30, 2007 3:46 AM
Good heavens.
I can't help but to describe the coldly practical reason why this is an incredibly bad choice:
sooner or later, no matter who is on the copyrights committee, someone will hit a false positive, and there will be much of internet drama. But because Burt is going to be on the committee when that happens, you'll get extra drama, blame, and finger pointing - even if he behaves in a perfectly circumspect manner.
Posted by: midori | November 30, 2007 4:05 AM
The formulation of the board's resolution is quite tendentious. It implies the exploratory committee recommended not just to change the name but also reinstate the old committee as-is. Coming from people who craft words for a living, it simply isn't accidental, and clearly shows blatant disregard. Airing this dirty laundry was absolutely the right thing to do.
Posted by: Fazal Majid | November 30, 2007 4:10 AM
Does anyone else feel like SFWA is merely a microcosm of greater political wars? That we have seen this story more times than we want to imagine? I remember Elizabeth Moon's apt story in a long-ago FORUM about the hysterics taking place at the family reunion...but there were still people trying to get Great Aunt Whoever's birdcage in the door and keeping a rein on their tempers.
I'm starting to lose faith that we can slap this organization into a group that can face the 21st century.
I remember Michael as a level-headed person whom I thought could handle the PR and Deciding Vote responsibilities of SFWA president. Now, I wonder.
Would it REALLY be harder to start a new group, without the baggage of the old?
Posted by: Katharine Eliska Kimbriel | November 30, 2007 4:26 AM
What's your suggested method for making our voices heard?
Posted by: Vylar Kaftan | November 30, 2007 4:31 AM
At this point, I think it is not entirely unreasonable to wonder aloud as to the nature of the incriminating photos that /must/ exist. It is the only rational explanation for such a baffling choice.
Posted by: Johne Cook | November 30, 2007 5:02 AM
Since Scalzi has shut down comments on his post, I've driven over here. ;)
This is a most remarkable decision by the Board, and I think you should discuss with the other members of the Exploratory Committee whether you can make a unanimous statement that the Board completely and totally acted in opposition to the intentions of your report.
If nothing else, the coming election should prove even more hotly contested than the previous one.
Posted by: Andrew | November 30, 2007 5:04 AM
It helps to know that Andrew Burt, as the sitting VP of SFWA, got to vote for himself.
Posted by: John Scalzi | November 30, 2007 5:04 AM
On the good side, your reccomendations other than #3 were embraced with enthusiasm, and soon, you'll be able to vote for a more appropriate head of what appears for now to be the Amazing Changed Name Committee.
How long till the elections?
Posted by: vian | November 30, 2007 5:27 AM
"Never attribute to malice or conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity or incompetence."
And with SFWA, almost _anything_ can be explained by the latter factors.
Hey, I avoided elective office in SFWA by solemnly promising to follow in the footsteps of Robert J. Sawyer if elected... 8-).
(And I _like_ Rob.)
Posted by: S.M. Stirling | November 30, 2007 5:44 AM
Head-desk.
Posted by: Soon Lee | November 30, 2007 6:34 AM
It's not just that Andrew Burt did things that generated bad publicity: it's that he was so shockingly incompetent. He clearly didn't even know what a DMCA notice was, as well as the whole question of acring for authors who hadn't given the SFWA authority to act for them.
I'm not sure what the formal wording should be, but I reckon an useful protest would be a letter to the SFWA explicitly refusing authority for the organisation to carry out copyright enforcement on your behalf.
Note that I wrote "refusing" rather than "withdrawing". You cannot withdraw an authority you've never given.
Posted by: Dave Bell | November 30, 2007 6:35 AM
I am surprised and dismayed. I am also dismayed that I am surprised. It does indeed look like the committee was used as a stalking horse.
Posted by: Eileen Gunn | November 30, 2007 6:53 AM
So, instead of being insulted, should I be glad that SFWA never cashed the $1,000.00 check I sent them after the 2nd Glasgow Worldcon, at ExDir's request, to upgrade my membership and that of my wife to Lifetime Active, even after my reminding them repeatedly over the past 2 years that they hadn't resolved the matter?
Instead of being insulted, should I be glad that the defective DMCA notice SFWA'd earlier sent me for someone else's errors on someone else's web site only cost me a few thousand bucks of legal fees to protest? Or that the liaison I tried to build almost 20 years ago between SFWA and NWU Grievance Committees never worked?
For the past few years, I've preferred to spend my time as a full-time Mathematician, Physicist, and Biologist, writing publishable Math and Science every day; and being a full-time teacher; rather than being a Science Fiction author in a chaotic market buffeted by media consolidation and pixel-stained technopeasants, with a confused professional organization. I prefer presenting papers and Chairing Sessions at interdisciplinary Science Conferences to giving panels (and sometimes having lunatic staffers keep me off panels whose Moderators agreed in writing they wanted me) at Science Fiction Cons. Although, just to consider mixed quantum states, I did enjoy being Con Chair of a mini Science Fiction con embedded in an interdisciplinary Science Conferences in 2006, and will do so again in 2009.
Not only is truth stranger than fiction, but publishing truth is more entertaining than publishing fiction.
I'd rather read any novel by Stross or Scalzi than yet again wait years for editors to lose my novel manuscripts on their desks and have to be reminded.
Since no sensible SFWA officer would ever ask me to be on any committee, I don't have to politely decline. Better for everyone that way.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | November 30, 2007 7:12 AM
Have you considered that in america is really is a better business model to buy a few convenient laws and then get local law enforcement to rough people up for money over poorly defined alleged civil infractions?
Posted by: Bruce Murphy | November 30, 2007 7:43 AM
I will stay in SFWA through this election cycle. If Capo or Burt is an officer next time? I'm gone, and I strongly suspect lots of other people will be too.
As to whoever said that Burt's presence would make drama even if he acted circumspectly -- I'd ask how they could possibly know that, since Burt seems to never have acted circumspectly.
Posted by: Rachel | November 30, 2007 7:44 AM
Oh, jolly. I see I rejoined just in time for the raree show.
What a gang of idiots.
Posted by: Rosemary Edghill | November 30, 2007 8:26 AM
So, uh, please explain: How did these people get elected in the first place? (Insert "Hanging chad" joke of your choice.)
-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com
Posted by: A.R.Yngve | November 30, 2007 9:12 AM
Wow, does Burt not understand that he is a useless dinosaur?
Posted by: in RI | November 30, 2007 10:05 AM
ARY @29: These people got elected last time round because nobody registered their candidacy in time to appear on the ballot. (It would have been an unopposed election, except that John Scalzi organized a write-in candidacy on the grounds that unopposed elections were bad for the organization. (No shit.) The trouble is, write-in candidacies are automatically at a huge disadvantage.)
RI @30: ad hominem comments like that are not constructive. (I personally tend towards the opinion that Andrew Burt is very good at what he does -- it's just that what he does is not very good for SFWA.)
Vylar Kaftan @16: to make your voice heard: if you're a member of SFWA, vote against the current executive at the next election (in May/June, IIRC). If you're not a member of SFWA, but meet the eligibility requirements, consider joining before then. (Before this debacle I might have suggested showing up in the SFWA private forums and making a noise, but I'm becoming convinced that they're a dangerous echo chamber that serves only to reinforce the current dysfunctional executive's sense that they're doing the right thing.)
Katharine @15: the trouble with starting a rival organization to SFWA is that there probably aren't enough SF writers out there to make two such trade organizations viable, on both a membership and funding basis. I don't see a rival to SFWA as being practical unless either (a) SFWA collapses completely first, or (b) a sugar daddy offers it a $1M cheque by way of seed corn (which just ain't gonna happen).
MatGB @6: I won't be running, but I don't expect the next election to be uncontested or contested by a last minute write-in ...
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 11:06 AM
@Charlie.
I can't help but notice that the commentators, on this post, are not the usual crowd. ;-)
Posted by: Keith Douglas | November 30, 2007 11:12 AM
vian @20: It is worth noting that the SFWA did not embrace the recommendations with enthusiasm, since they have:
a) deliberately recast the first recommendation by suggesting it included the reinstatement of the previous committee in full and with the same chairman. This, emphatically, was not what was recommended.
b) they have deliberately not accepted recommendation 3, yet recommendation 3 is the heart of the recommendations. It is here, and only here, that the make-up, working methods, range of interest and structure of the committee were addressed. Without this, what is left is not exactly cosmetic, but it does not require any fundamental change in procedures or much reconsideration of what the committee does.
I say this as someone who does not (I think) qualify for membership, and who would have no intention of joining anyway.
Posted by: Paul Kincaid | November 30, 2007 11:42 AM
Charlie,
For the record, I was the one person who voted NAY on the motion and I tried very hard to create a different outcome than this. I deeply appreciate the work done by you and the other committee members and can appreciate your frustration.
Posted by: Russell Davis | November 30, 2007 11:44 AM
Charlie, keep in mind that the vast majority of SFWA's funding comes from the Swedish government, which remits tens of thousands of dollars per year to the organization from the pool of funds collected for library use of American sf books in Swedish libraries. If a second org could lay claim to those funds, it could certainly be self-sustaining.
Posted by: Cory | November 30, 2007 11:52 AM
Cory, I didn't know that. You interest me strangely ...
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 12:07 PM
Actually it may not be the majority -- the last I checked it was $75k/year IIRC. If a couple thousand members are paying $70/year, the Swedish money is probably more like 50% or 30%. Jesus, what DOES SFWA do with all that money? Publish Bulletin? I guess the medical fund eats some of it.
Posted by: Cory | November 30, 2007 12:11 PM
That's a good question ...
I can see the medical fund being very expensive to run. It exists to make interest-free loans to writers with emergency medical expenses, and repayment is expected, but in practice they have been known to write off the loans. (Parenthetically speaking, I expect one aspect of the coming economic/political car crash is that the USA will eventually try to fix their broken medical system, as part of the whole package of infrastructure reforms they so desperately need to address. At which point the EMF will hopefully become obsolete. But I'm not expecting this to happen within the next five years ...)
I suspect another chunk of SFWA's budget goes on legal fees in support of Griefcom's activities.
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 12:20 PM
Just looked at the last Treasurer's Report. Looks like a big chunk of the money goes to the Nebs and Worldcon suite, a smaller chunk to overheads, and the rest just goes to misc.
Posted by: Cory | November 30, 2007 12:28 PM
What?? My country funds the SFWA? I don't know whether to be outraged or laugh...
:-O
Posted by: A.R.Yngve | November 30, 2007 12:33 PM
All I can say is... wow...
It boggles the mind. "Hey, you know that guy that royally screwed the pooch and created a huge public relations fiasco? Oh yeah, let's put him in charge again."
Posted by: JustAnotherJohn | November 30, 2007 12:38 PM
I must disagree with all these people -- many who I know and respect -- who are saying stay with SFWA.
In My Opinion, you *must* not. The only answer to being made the stalking horse is to refuse to stalk. They cannot cite you as supporting SFWA's actions when you've explicitly resigned because of those actions.
The only reason I'm not saying "fork SFWA" is the time cost -- you'd have to spend hours a day getting it to run if you were to take the lead. But if you want something like SFWA to work, that's what it is going to take. I can't suggest that, though -- it's the time-devourer, and you've better things to do with your life.
Posted by: Erik V. Olson | November 30, 2007 1:44 PM
This would be amusing were it not so grim.
I am not a SFWA member so my comment is free of personal entanglement beyond being mindful of FIAWOL. My view is?
Lacking a society wide consensus about the desired handling the end point is moot. As the street buzz in some Fandom circles holds society consensus on RESPECT for copyright as dubious at best. And respect is more powerful than we give credence to. But earning respect needs consensus AND respect for all involved parties.
Some relationships cause Respect to be strained.
SFWA could in this case emulate either Jerry Garcia or Garth Brooks.
More on that in what I call the Garcia Vs Brooks logic sets.
Garcia:
Ok folks-start your recorders this is the first time we're playing this tune.
Brooks:
Whinges to Congress about sales of used cd's dooming his kids to public school.
Where Respect comes in in is to direct a world order that allows and CHERISHES the Garcia model while not spitefully ripping Brooks off by blatant immoral THEFT.
Example one-Sell a used cd- yes.. Just like selling a book. Tell Garth to grow up.
Example two -Host a torrent for "Author Authorised" music yes, A tribute to Jerry it is.
Buy a new cd only 3 hours old- post on server- For shame you bad karma thief! Oh it's not really that bad...
Do please tell me how you justify the last example or demonise the first 2?
And the same can apply by replacing the Singer's names with Authors names- and CD with Book.
It all comes down to respect.
Posted by: Oren Beck | November 30, 2007 2:06 PM
Thank you, Charlie. Yes, I'm a SFWA member. I was hoping there was something I could do sooner than that. But certainly I will remember this at election time.
Posted by: Vylar Kaftan | November 30, 2007 2:55 PM
Just when you wonder how fucked fucked can get, things get more fucked.
Fuck.
Well, I guess if I ever get published, I will never join SFWA. Jesus Christ!
Posted by: Chang, who is fucking incredulous | November 30, 2007 3:30 PM
Chang, I can think of several ways that SFWA could go downhill from here. I'm not going to discuss them in public (in case anyone gets any ideas), but if they show signs of materializing, I will quit the organization publicly, in high dudgeon, because to do anything else would risk the ire of my readers.
During the Burt/Scribd fiasco I noted some more intemperate fans calling for a boycott of all SFWA members -- that's the sort of thing that really could hurt, and I think avoiding that kind of public reaction ought to be a lot higher on the executive's list of priorities than it is.
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 3:37 PM
As a sociologist, I find it quite interesting to see that even a "unpolitical" organization as the association of science fiction writers develops the same mistakes and problems political involved organizations (as well as large corporations) show. Even with their own majority/minority/splitting thing. Is it really only people? Or is the amout of power and structure big enough to steer even a well-meaning commitee into deep troubles? (Without knowing anything about either the inner workings nor the external relevance of the SFWA).
Posted by: Till Westermayer | November 30, 2007 3:40 PM
As a longtime fan and SFWA observer, I wouldn't call for the boycott of SFWA writers. That seems stupid to me. There are many fine people in SFWA, many writers whose work I enjoy.
However, I find SFWA management so silly that I'd never join the organization.
Posted by: Laurie Mann | November 30, 2007 3:44 PM
Charlie @31: the trouble with viewing Andrew Burt as good at what he does is that the public evidence indicates otherwise, at least in the Scribd case, where he had over 80 errors in his list of works he claimed SFWA had the standing to issue a DCMA takedown notice for.
Posted by: Stephen Granade | November 30, 2007 3:50 PM
Re the Swedish funds - if it is something like Public Lending Right, how can SFWA pocket it anyway? (Well, unless each member signed it away on joining the organization, but why would the Swedish side be willing to pay a body that is obviously not the authors or their agents?) Is more information on this available somewhere (preferably online)?
Posted by: Jan Vaněk jr. | November 30, 2007 4:04 PM
"As a sociologist, I find it quite interesting to see that even a "unpolitical" organization as the association of science fiction writers develops the same mistakes and problems political involved organizations (as well as large corporations) show. Even with their own majority/minority/splitting thing. Is it really only people? Or is the amout of power and structure big enough to steer even a well-meaning commitee into deep troubles? (Without knowing anything about either the inner workings nor the external relevance of the SFWA)."
Westermeyer,
I would respond in two ways: 1) The organization is not apolitical, particularly those aspects of it which have to do explicitly with copyright. 2) To the extent that the incompetence, splitting, etc. mirror large corporations or political actions, it would be unclear whether they're fundamental in power structure, personhood, or some other element of the situation -- or whether they're part and parcel of our cultural response to those elements. Political parties and corporations may provide cultural models for how to deal with certain problems and situations.
Posted by: Rachel | November 30, 2007 4:18 PM
Wow. How totally dumb. I'd seen SFWA be apathetic and shortsighted before (I was the president of a group hosting a SFWA depository for a while) but treating its members this way is ridiculous. I hope they come to their senses, and I support the idea of getting a statement from the Exploratory Committee.
Posted by: Kat | November 30, 2007 4:33 PM
Stephen @49: I didn't say that what Burt is good at is anything to do with what he was supposed to be doing on behalf of SFWA. (More than that I shall not say; remember that libel laws differ between jurisdictions, and I live too close to England for comfort.)
Kat et al: SFWA is a non-profit organization run by volunteers. Most volunteers are people with an over-developed sense of duty, which is good; but a small minority of volunteers have other, less savoury motivations. Obviously, I can't speak as to anyone else's motivation, but I suspect that not all members of the SFWA executive are selflessly putting the good of the organization ahead of their own interests.
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 4:55 PM
Possibility:
Authors (both SWFA members and not) gang up signing a statement that if the committee interferes with their livelihoods -- e.g., by demanding takedown of a work from a context where the author agreed to put it -- the undersigned will pursue appropriate remedies against SFWA, up to and including lawsuit.
This does not cover all the kinds of hooliganism which the committee can perpetrate, but it makes clear what your relationship with them is.
Posted by: Andrew Plotkin | November 30, 2007 5:02 PM
So I get that Andrew Burt was able to vote for himself but surely that wasn't the only vote that got him back in that position. It sounds like the SFWA Board backs Burt (unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the power of the VP vote). That's what really scares me. How many people in SFWA back Burt?
Posted by: DKT | November 30, 2007 5:22 PM
Just so you know, Mr. Burt isn't wasting any time.
Posted by: Erik Olson | November 30, 2007 5:30 PM
I was set to resign this year but was convinced to rejoin, partly to be one more vote against Burt, who it appears will run for president next year. But I wouldn't be running against him again, and frankly, I just don't see the sense in it any more. It's probably time to walk away, Charlie. But first I'll go see what's happening in the zoo, check out the lay of the land there.
D
Posted by: Derryl Murphy | November 30, 2007 5:46 PM
Re: 47: "As a sociologist, I find it quite interesting to see that even a 'unpolitical' organization as the association of science fiction writers develops the same mistakes and problems political involved organizations... show."
It took SFWA a couple of expensive blunders to realize the value of nonpartisanship in external politics.
During the Vietnam War, one clique of SFWA members took out a full-page ad in the New York Times opposing the Administration position on the war. Then a different clique of SFWA members took out a full-page ad in the New York Times supporting the Administration position on the war. End result? Lots of wasted money. Lots.
This happened again, with the external stressor being the administration's "Star Wars" position, meaning not the sci-fi film and books, but the Strategic Defense Organization. One clique was led by Dr. Jerry Pournelle at al (who had rather brilliantly helped to persuade Ronald Reagan in the first place). Cf. the Ed.D. dissertation by Ben Bova. The other clique was de facto led by Sir Arthur C. Clarke, who opposed any militarization of Space, and is, in a related matter, short-listed for a Nobel Peace Prize.
The fights worth fighting, for SFWA, are not the fights of society at large. They are fights against the common enemies: predatory publishers, movie studios (Harlan Ellison famously resigned over SFWA not taking action in an egregious case), Television Production Companies, agents, and the tax-man. Harlan was then made Life Member by Presdiential fiat, whether he'd wanted it or not. Cute maneuver. Harlan has had a big dog in the Intellectual Property wars, on the Intenet.
Writers Guild of America West is the entity fighting the Movie and TV Establishment, that fight currently on the street. The strike must end by early february, else the city of Los Angeles will lose $200,000,000 revenue from an Academy Awards ceremony. L.A.'s mayor is working behind the scenes, as is California's givernor (who knows a bit about movies).
The problem in the Intellectual Property wars is that different SFWA officers perceive different enemies.
Structurally, there is tension between those who want a "strong" president of SFWA, and those who want a "weak" president. The pressures which caused strong president Rob Sawyer to resign are indicative, but not for specific discussion on this venue, other than the defective DMCA notice slammed on me was because I did something that Rob Sawyer -- as SFWA President -- had approved, but which was not then enacted by the Board of Directors. It is expensive and nasty to be caught in the midst of one of these internal struggle for who is alpha male.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | November 30, 2007 5:47 PM
A.R.Yngve asked: How did these people get elected in the first place?
Charlie responded: These people got elected last time round because nobody registered their candidacy in time to appear on the ballot. (It would have been an unopposed election, except that John Scalzi organized a write-in candidacy on the grounds that unopposed elections were bad for the organization. (No shit.) The trouble is, write-in candidacies are automatically at a huge disadvantage.)
Scalzi's candidacy was more "disadvantaged" than that. He not only decided to run too late to appear on the ballot, in fact he didn't even announce his candidacy until a week after the ballots were received by the voters, and hence many-- and possibly most-- of the voters had already voted before he started running. It was very nearly mathematically impossible for him to be have been elected.
The reason that recent SFWA elections tend to be unopposed is that it's become pretty clear in the last few years that anybody who gets elected to SFWA office will fact an unrelenting barrage of shit flung into their face. It has become increasingly difficult to find anybody willing to accept an office that, as far as I can see, has no upside whatsoever.
However, I'm willing to organize a write-in campaign for Charlie.
Posted by: Geoffrey A. Landis | November 30, 2007 6:25 PM
Knowing both estimable gentlemen, I consider Hugo-winner Nebula-winner Professor Geoffrey A. Landis' statement "I'm willing to organize a write-in campaign for Charlie" to be a Very Big Deal.
To Till Westermayer (#47, 57) based on the conferences where I've presented Sociology papers (such as the NAACSOS, North American Association for Computation in Social and Organizational Systems), and my having been elected to Town Councils in two states, I have a question.
It is a folk-theorem in the field that Organizations change structure under either an internal or external pressure. But how is "pressure" defined (as opposed to mere physical metaphor) and what quantitative data supports either the external or internal structural change hypothesis. Structural change measured how -- entropy? Graph-theory? Number of 3-martini lunches? Number of words of blog fights?
SFWA, by the way, is a Small World Network, so far as I can see. I have massive data on the co-authorship linkages between authors worldwide, with Isaac Asimov defined as the center (as is Erdos in Math, or Kevin Bacon in Hollywood).
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | November 30, 2007 6:35 PM
I'll run for SFWA president next year, Charlie. I've already announced my platform, but I'd be happy to promise you Andrew Burt's head on a silver platter if you'd like.
1. Increase the prestige of the Nebula novel award by awarding the winner a cash prize in addition to the customary trophy. I have already spoken to publishers who have indicated an interest in contributing financial sponsorship for the award. It's worth noting that the most prestigious prizes in the world, from the Nobel to the Booker, are inevitably accompanied by an amount of cash.
2. Replace the Nebula Scripts category with "Best SF-themed film, game or non-fiction book.
3. Foster closer relations with the electronic games industry by revisiting Question 3 of the 1998 Sawyer referendum by opening SFWA membership to writers with three or more writing credits on published electronic games, working with the organization that sponsors the various GDC events around the world to create opportunities for SFWA members in the games industry.
4. Rename the Bulletin to SFWA Magazine and turn it into a bona-fide magazine of interest to the greater science fiction and fantasy community by publishing a novella and three short stories written by members in every issue. The objective would be to turn it into a must-read for everyone with any interest in the genre.
5. Increase the power of the Nebula juries by having the short fiction jury submit regular recommendations for the fiction to be published in the SFWA Monthly to the editor and by allowing the various juries to REMOVE works that have qualified for the Nebula ballot. This should bring an end to the award-by-popularity-contest phenomenon that is so grossly embarrassing to the organization.
6. Turn the SFWA web site into the premier online science fiction and fantasy e-library by providing freely downloadable works available in all formats from every SFWA member interested in contributing. All of the available evidence suggests that freely distributable ebooks help authors who are not among the 50 best-selling in the world, they don't hurt them. The primary problem facing most authors is a surfeit of awareness, not an excess of supply. Blindly following the RIAA's lead in attempting to protect dubious "rights" is stupid, shortsighted and doomed to failure. Any members who don't wish to participate, of course, may decline to submit content.
7. Pursue a treaty of non-aggression with the Romance Writers of America prior to launching a joint assault on the Mystery Writers of America. Of course, the SFWA will only honor the treaty until we are in a position of subsequent strength to take on the RWA directly, which I hope to achieve by the spring of 2010.
8. And finally, due to the Regrettable and Very Serious incidents brought to light in the December 2006 Forum, I will establish an official Do Not Hug Registry to which concerned members of the organization may add their names. Violators will be punished with the removal of the offending limb(s) by a scimitar wielded by the Head of the Grievance Committee.
Posted by: Vox Day | November 30, 2007 6:44 PM
There's a problem with number 5: you're changing the Nebulas from a popularity contest into a clique/nepotist contest. Not good.
Posted by: Sara Genge | November 30, 2007 7:11 PM
Vox Day:
2. Replace the Nebula Scripts category with "Best SF-themed film, game or non-fiction book.
Umm, howabout manga/comic books/graphic novels? There's quite a few now that are remarkable SF, but they all are entered under 'scripts' I think, which creates a vote-competition problem.* One solution would be to expand it as a grab-bag category as you suggest, but allow multiple winners. (Nothing excessive, perhaps two, or if one felt extremely generous, three.)
Also note that voting, for example, the Foglio's Girl Genius, is hindered by the "which year was it actually published", since the bound copy of a given book in the series might span multiple years, and the original release is going to be a webcomic (or floppy comic).
*there's also a definition problem: how much text do they have to have before they are 'just novels'? Japanese style 'light novels' aren't pushing this boundary too much...yet.
Posted by: midori | November 30, 2007 7:39 PM
Re: 61 "Pursue a treaty of non-aggression with the Romance Writers of America prior to launching a joint assault on the Mystery Writers of America."
A very RISKy strategy. And what are Western Writers of America and Horror Writers of America -- chopped liver?
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | November 30, 2007 8:05 PM
Kill the organization and start a new one with a clear mandate: the promotion of written science fiction and fantasy. (I think it's telling that SFWA's current about page talks about what SFWA's done, but not why it exists.) Offer up professional memberships (ie for people who are writing and publishing) and supporting memberships (ie you love this stuff) in order to keep the ranks and the coffers full. Have a professional endowment manager whose job is to make sure the group's funds are invested and spent properly and transparently. Be the legal bulldog for authors who can't afford it, but make sure the fights will benefit the entire organization (going after a studio that's ripped off a member is Worth It, filing bullshit DMCA takedowns is Not Worth It). Be the resource for teachers and librarians who don't know they need it. Have awards where the pros nominate and everyone votes.
Does anyone have Paul Allen's number? 'Cause if he can fund the Science Fiction Museum, he ought to be able to pay for something like this with the loose change in his couch.
Posted by: Adam Rakunas | November 30, 2007 8:06 PM
Vox, @61: doubtless your campaign to restructure SFWA will run more smoothly after you disenfranchise all those pesky women. Right?
Adam @65: killing an organization, many of whose members do not wish it to die, is a somewhat ... difficult ... job. Nor is the patronage of one man, however rich, a stable long term platform for such an organization to build on.
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 8:10 PM
follows link Charlie gives in #67
reads
eyes bleed
yeaaaaargghh! The goggles, they do nothing!
Oh, the logic, how squamous and rugose! Rhetoric of no earthly color!
Posted by: midori | November 30, 2007 8:42 PM
I've been following this since about the beginning. As a non-SFWA member I'm not privy to the entire story. As someone who deals every day with intellectual property and particularly electronic copyright infringement:
It is pretty obvious from the various rantings on the web that there are at least two camps within SFWA regarding copyright and electronic publication. I'll call them the Doctorow and Pournelle camps since those two have been among the most vocal proponents of the various positions.
Its obvious to me from timing and etc that Doctorow & friends jumped on the "kill Burt" bandwagon - were in fact, largley responsible for turning it into the huge mess it became - because it gave them the opportunity to push their platform within SFWA; they used a misguided attempt at doing the right thing as an excuse to try and dismantle the political opposition to 'let information be free' within SFWA - and did a very good job at it.
Perhaps Burt was appointed to the chairmanship of the new/old piracy committee because Copobianco recognized Doctorow & company's play for what it was. Given the circumstances, there seems little else he could do in order to retain control of the electronic rights issue.
In point of fact I happen to know that Burt's quasi-DMCA notice resulted in quite a few pieces by deceased authors being taken off of Scribd: at least one of those authors has a widow who depends on royalties, and his work is in fact being published again in electronic form. In this instance, Burt's actions completely accomplished the goal of returning control - and revenue - to the person who owns it.
Appointing a make-work committee strictly for political expediency is not a good thing (except maybe for lame ducks) but I wouldn't quickly rush to the judgement that everything Burt did was bad and I most certainly wouldn't be allowing the Doctorow camp to benefit from the mess they HELPED make out of their own politically expedient manueverings...
Posted by: steve | November 30, 2007 9:07 PM
Charlie @67: I meant having one angel investor to get the ball rolling, with the idea that continued dues, profits from anthologies, etc. would roll into an endowment to fund the new beast. But, yes, going to the sugar daddy well every time the balance sheet goes red would be a nasty mess.
I keep thinking that no one would have to kill SFWA, that it would croak on its own from attrition (older members dying, younger members giving it the finger), but, no. As long as the Swedish money keeps rolling in, SFWA will totter on.
Posted by: Adam Rakunas | November 30, 2007 9:11 PM
No need to actively kill the organization against the wishes of its members. This is a problem that is taking care of itself.
First, members are realizing that many of the useful things SFWA does (Writers Beware, the emergency medical fund, etc.) are either replicated elsewhere or are in the process of being replicated elsewhere. So if you care deeply about the issues SFWA supports, you can channel your energy elsewhere.
Second, members are (rightly) agonizing over the social and emotional investments they've made in the organization over the years. But as their good friends drop out of SFWA, cutting this tie will get easier and easier. And brand-new writers don't ship from the factory equipped with built-in nostalgia for SFWA.
Unless there is some sort of massive leadership change at the very next election, these two factors will feed off each other and accelerate until there is nothing left.
Posted by: Evan Goer | November 30, 2007 9:12 PM
Umm, howabout manga/comic books/graphic novels?
Sure, include them too.
doubtless your campaign to restructure SFWA will run more smoothly after you disenfranchise all those pesky women. Right?
With all due respect, Charlie, I'm sure you're astute enough to know that you live in a non-democratic political entity ruled by an unaccountable and unelected oligarchy, so it's somewhat ironic to hear your concerns about suffrage. Voting != freedom. As for the SFWA, if our female members wish to vote for the "I slept with a sexy vampire/werewolf/ghost" that so many of them seem to enjoy writing, that's really up to them. I just want to make it possible for the Nebula to be relevant; if the membership continues to give awards to the likes of Catharine Asaro instead of far more deserving writers like Iain Banks and, (if I can say this without sounding too obsequious), one Mr. Charles Stross, that's their choice.
I don't expect to win, since one can't expect the politically sensitive to vote for someone with my frighteningly unequalitarian views, but perhaps a more electable candidate will see fit to adopt a few of the less radical ideas.
As for #5, the popularity contest is not a problem with the short stories, it's that not enough people have actually read them. So, the nepotism issue is not what it would be if we were talking about novels; you'll note I only recommended this change for the short fiction jury.
The jury removals are unlikely to be a problem, as I think I can safely attest that people who are disliked by a substantial portion of the membership don't get nominated in the first place. (Hell, they don't even get read in the first place!) But if you've ever looked at the NAR, you can see that the some of the same people are nominating their friends every single time a book comes out, this is meant to address that problem.
Posted by: Vox Day | November 30, 2007 9:13 PM
"In point of fact I happen to know that Burt's quasi-DMCA notice resulted in quite a few pieces by deceased authors being taken off of Scribd: at least one of those authors has a widow who depends on royalties, and his work is in fact being published again in electronic form. In this instance, Burt's actions completely accomplished the goal of returning control - and revenue - to the person who owns it."
Well, there you go. There was this one time that SFWA's unauthorized, legally-actionable behavior actually helped someone -- widows and orphans even! So it's all good.
Posted by: Evan Goer | November 30, 2007 9:21 PM
"a misguided attempt at doing the right thing"
By the logic of post #69, above, cops should be let off the hook for damaging the business property (or relationships!) of innocent parties if, in the process, they happen to find evidence of somebody else's crime. Because what matters isn't the damage you do, but that you were "trying to do the right thing." Wrecked the infrastructure of a country of twenty million people? Set off a bloody civil war resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths? But we were "trying to do the right thing!" How can you think badly of us?
We've had plenty of that sort of logic in the last few years. Civilized people don't need to be walked through elementary explanations of why it's barbaric.
Posted by: Patrick Nielsen Hayden | November 30, 2007 9:24 PM
Charlie, I'm sure you're astute enough to know that you live in a non-democratic political entity ruled by an unaccountable and unelected oligarchy, so it's somewhat ironic to hear your concerns about suffrage.
That's pretty funny, all things considered, coming from a citizen of a nation where (a) roughly 90% of all legislative districts at federal level are gerrymandered on the behalf of one party or another, (b) roughly 95% of the legislators are lawyers by training, and (c) around 60% of them are the children of previous legislators. (Can you spell "hereditary aristocracy"?)
Nevertheless, a lack of immediate democratic accountability is not a valid excuse for giving up on the process. Ahem.
Getting back to the nebulas: log-rolling is indeed a problem. In fact, it's encouraged by the structure of the nebula process. The only excuse for the process that I can see is that too much eligible fiction is published in any given year for the jury to read it all, so some sort of pre-filtering is necessary, and the way the pre-filtering evolved within the nebula process just happened to end up FUBARed beyond all recursive acronymisation.
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 9:24 PM
Ah! FUBARBARA. (notes acronym for future use)
Posted by: Patrick Nielsen Hayden | November 30, 2007 9:34 PM
I really need a double shot of a good single malt right now, but something tells me that blogging under the influence isn't a smart move. Gaah.
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 9:35 PM
Resist, Charlie. It's a waste of single malt.
Try a blend instead.
Posted by: abi | November 30, 2007 9:40 PM
That's pretty funny, all things considered, coming from a citizen of a nation where (a) roughly 90% of all legislative districts at federal level are gerrymandered on the behalf of one party or another, (b) roughly 95% of the legislators are lawyers by training, and (c) around 60% of them are the children of previous legislators. (Can you spell "hereditary aristocracy"?)
You'll get no argument from me! My distaste for the anti-democratic EUSSR is in no way a defense of the faux "representative" democracy of the USSA.
I'm not saying that my proposed Nebula fix is the only solution, but a 5k cash prize for best novel, putting fiction in the Bulletin and bringing the game and comic writers in would help move things towards a state of sustainable relevance, even if the initial culture shock would probably kill a few of the fainter hearts.
Posted by: Vox Day | November 30, 2007 9:40 PM
pnh, 76,
Ah! FUBARBARA. (notes acronym for future use)
Actually, I would say it Fu BaRa, (歩薔薇) which I might put as: pwned rose
Ref:
歩 (pawn, which I would be tempted to use in place of pwn)
薔薇, BaRa (meaning the flower rose, but used idomaticaly to signify male homosexuality, see uses of the term 百合, Yuri, meaning 'lily'.)
Posted by: midori | November 30, 2007 9:50 PM
I gave up and went for the alcohol.
It's late; I'm turning in. Play nice!
Posted by: Charlie Stross | November 30, 2007 9:56 PM
Charles@47: funny you should mention that, I was thinking earlier about how one can determine if a person is a SFWA member in near-realtime (not all that near; I'd settle for being able to learn in 5 minutes if they were a member, accurate to within a couple of months).
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | November 30, 2007 10:01 PM
Does anyone know whether the back-channel recommendation regarding Dr. Burt actually reached Mr. Capobianco?
Posted by: allochthon | November 30, 2007 10:23 PM
re: Vox Day, #72: "if the membership continues to give awards to the likes of Catharine Asaro instead of far more deserving writers like Iain Banks and, (if I can say this without sounding too obsequious), one Mr. Charles Stross, that's their choice..."
(a) When Bill Clinton was asked for his opinion of Al Gore and George W. Bush, he said something akin to: "am I the only one here who likes both of them?" This was much funnier than the old saw about a politician's favorite color being plaid, which, tartan-wise, is appropriate for this blog.
(b) As it happens, I am a fan of Catharine Asaro and Iain Banks and Charles Stross, in writing and in person. Hence I must point out (as of an old cache I have of her web page) that Catherine Asaro is a multi-takented person, with Ph.D. in Chemical Physics and MA in Physics (Harvard), and B.S. with Highest Honors in Chemistry (UCLA). She has done fascinating research at U. Toronto, Max Planck Institut für Astrophysik, and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Her research used quantum theory to describe the behavior of atoms and molecules. Catherine was a physics professor until 1990, when she established Molecudyne Research, which she currently runs. Her fiction is a successful blend of hard science fiction, romance, space adventure. Her novel, The Quantum Rose, won the Nebula Award for best novel of 2001 (which I think causes Vox Day's sour grapes). True, she is a three-time winner of the Romantic Times Book Club award for "Best Science Fiction Novel." (which relates to the RWA conquest wet dreams of Vox Day). To date, she's credited with at least 16 novels, 11 of which belong to her Saga of the Skolian Empire. January 2006 saw the mass market reprint of the NAL anthology, Irresistible Forces, in which Asaro debuted as an editor. Irresistible Forces features new novellas by six top authors in the genres of science fiction, romance, and fantasy: Lois McMaster Bujold, Mary Jo Putney, Jo Beverley, Jennifer Roberson, Deb Stover, and Catherine herself. Does someone have a problem with female-dominated anthologies?
Catherine is also part of the Analog m.a.f.i.a., magazine and in several anthologies, as well as being prolific with reviews, nonfiction essays, and scientific papers in refereed academic journals. Her paper "Complex Speeds and Special Relativity," which appeared in the April 1996 issue of The American Journal of Physics, forms the basis for some of the science in her novels.
When not writing and making appearances at conferences, Catherine also teaches a math club for homeschool children of all ages. I happen to consider teachers to be heroes and heroines, Math teachers espwcially. Catherine Asaro has performed with ballets and in musicals on both coasts and in Ohio. In the 1980's she was a principal dancer and artistic director of the Mainly Jazz Dancers and the Harvard University Ballet. After she graduated, her undergraduate students took over Mainly Jazz and made it into an organization at the college. She's married to John Kendall Cannizzo, an astrophysicist at NASA. They have one daughter, a ballet dancer and mathematician.
(c) The fact that someone as wonderful as Catharine Asaro gets attacked in public is part of why SFWA is in many ways a self-loathing impotent monster. Our little in-house Forum, which I no longer get, my $1,000.00 check not having been cashed, nor my publications (including the the SFWA Anthology) considered professional enough, is mostly flame wars about Nebula Awards for Best Emcee performance at a Nebula Awards Ceremony being too recursive, and border-line libel about colleagues. Of course, much SFWA budget goes into printing the SFWA Forum in gilt-edged vellum editions bound with human skin.
You folks do know who's won both Nebula from SFWA and Edgar from MWA, right?
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | November 30, 2007 10:25 PM
...not to mention sending out a clear signal that SFWA is a dysfunctional organization, institutionally incapable of learning from bad experiences...
As a two-term ex-member of the SFWA Board of Directors: yup, that pretty much nails it.
Posted by: Bruce Bethke | November 30, 2007 10:44 PM
Hi, Charlie. Mind if I reply to a lot of people? They're all coming here to talk about it.
Rosemary (29): Oh, come on. You know there's always going to be a raree show.
Cory et al., I had no idea that SFWA gets so much money from Sweden. I can tell you where part of it goes: SFWA's never gotten the hang of negotiating advantageous hotel contracts.
Charlie (47), it's the worst sort of bad luck to say that SFWA can't get any worse than whatever it's doing at that moment. Proof: people keep saying it, and look what happens.
A general question: why should we believe that increased cooperativeness at Scribd is the result of Andrew Burt's/SFWA's efforts? If they were being careless about allowing uploads of copyrighted materials, other rightsholders could have taken action -- and probably didn't step on their own neckties while doing it.
Jonathan Vos Post (59), the tension is not between members who want weak or strong presidents of SFWA. What everyone wants are competent presidents. Some members, despairing of getting consistent competence, have favored weakening the office so that inept yet self-confident presidents can do less damage.
Vox Day (62), you have no idea what you're doing. None. However, two of your proposals amused me:
6. Turn the SFWA web site into the premier online science fiction and fantasy e-library by providing freely downloadable works available in all formats from every SFWA member interested in contributing. At this point I twigged to the pattern in your proposals: You think SFWA's basic problem is that it doesn't have enough things to argue about, and it suffers from a superfluity of volunteer labor.
7. Pursue a treaty of non-aggression with the Romance Writers of America --
Good idea as far as it goes. I've seen their shock troops.
-- prior to launching a joint assault on the Mystery Writers of America.
You do know that those people have seminars on stuff like the technology of mayhem, and how to beat forensics tests?
Of course, the SFWA will only honor the treaty until we are in a position of subsequent strength to take on the RWA directly, which I hope to achieve by the spring of 2010.
Given your stated opinions on women, I'd love to see you take on the RWA. Bring a friend so there'll be someone to take charge of the remains.
Steve (69): it's very brave of you to post that much calumny, misinformation, and pure bullshit without putting your full name on it.
There was no "kill Burt" faction. First, Cory was angry because his Creative Commons-licensed work had been taken offline. He's been a crusader for Creative Commons and related positions, and people who heard about the takedown understandably wondered what was going on there.
Second, Cory had specifically forbidden SFWA to issue takedown notices on his behalf.
Third, he was upset that SFWA had harassed innocent users of Scribd under the provisions of the DMCA.
You aren't acquainted with Cory's actual positions on copyright. They're not hard to find, and they aren't especially hard to understand. If you intend to continue writing about copyright issues, you'll embarrass yourself in public less often if you find out what they are.
Jerry Pournelle doesn't have a position. His understanding of the issues gets more and more out of date. What he mostly does is bellow abuse on the private SFWA area. The only of this is that it keeps the rest of the internet from having to listen to his rants.
If there really had been a "Doctorow & company play" in progress, as your libellous fantasy would have it, Andrew Burt would have been reduced to a damp spot on the pavement. Fortunately for him, there was nothing of the sort going on.
(Has anyone ever told you that you should turn off the "imagination" option when you're trying to write nonfiction?)
That Scribd took down various texts was never the point of the argument. The problem was that the DMCA takedown notices were issued improperly and illegally, and that SFWA was made to look both villainous and incompetent.
Spare me your widows who depend on royalties. Online texts aren't depressing their incomes.
"I wouldn't quickly rush to the judgement that everything Burt did was bad..."
Fortunately, no one's doing any such thing. They're reacting to Burt's genuine errors.
...
Anybody here in favor of turning Vox Day over to SFWA's female members? I'd pay money to watch.
Posted by: Teresa Nielsen Hayden | November 30, 2007 10:45 PM
Given all the angst I suffer from how the feminist movement has made my life far more miserable than it would have been in the good ol' days of 1950 or 1850 or whenever the good ol' days were supposed to be, yes, I'd love to take out all my wretchedness on Vox Day.
Just as soon as I get done crying miserable tears of depression over my right to vote, personally-owned property, happy non-arranged marriage, and pair of successful and intellectually challenging careers.
(Oh, wait. Can I participate, even though I'm not in SFWA?)
People who think women are less happy now? Aren't paying attention. The difference is that now women are free to speak up about being unhappy, and then to do something about it.
Posted by: Marie Brennan | November 30, 2007 11:06 PM
Does someone have a problem with female-dominated anthologies?
Not a bit. If people want to read about sexy vampires and women whose psionic powers are unlocked by constant stimulation to orgasm, I don't mind.
I just have a problem with books that suck winning SFWA awards. I'm have no doubt that Asaro is a perfectly lovely individual, but I tried to read three of her books BECAUSE of that idiot award and I have zero regard for novels about strong, independent, beautiful, intelligent, but vulnerable women and the handsome, shipwrecked hunks who respect them.
Her books are admittedly not as bad as the one about the lighthouse keeper having an affair with a were-seal that another publisher sent me, but ye cats, they're bad!
I note that you defended Asaro, the person, not The Quantum Rose, the award-winning book. Look, award her Miss Congenial if you like, but why devalue the Nebula? Compared to past winners, that one stands out like a very sore thumb indeed and I suspect you may even know it.
If you don't think SFWA and the Nebula process has problems, so be it. I'm merely expressing my opinion; the fact that two very different individuals actually happen to agree that there are some serious problems tend to indicate that perhaps those problems exist.
As for sour grapes, please. I'm fine with never even being nominated for a Nebula. But I'm not fine with great writers being overlooked in favor of mediocre ones.
Posted by: Vox Day | November 30, 2007 11:10 PM
FUBARBARA: a really bad syllogism.
Posted by: Arthur D. Hlavaty | November 30, 2007 11:23 PM
Given your stated opinions on women, I'd love to see you take on the RWA. Bring a friend so there'll be someone to take charge of the remains.
Anytime, Miz Hayden. After I get through with the Rational Response Squad, Dawkins and Harris, I'll be happy to beat down a few fat old women. I've never had any problem smacking around women, I'm all about equality.
Anybody here in favor of turning Vox Day over to SFWA's female members? I'd pay money to watch.
Well, I'm probably a little light for THAT weight class these days, but I suppose I could fire up the creatine and get within 20 pounds for what passes for an SFW middleweight. Are you thinking Octagon? I know I am!
You think SFWA's basic problem is that it doesn't have enough things to argue about, and it suffers from a superfluity of volunteer labor.
No, I think its basic problem is that it is run by a committee of people who have never successfully run profitable businesses. Some of this is inevitable, most of it isn't. The SFWA isn't a business, nor should it be, but it doesn't have to be dysfunctional.
Posted by: Vox Day | November 30, 2007 11:35 PM
Women don't need male feminists such as myself or Dave Brin to defend them against absurdity. I stand corrected by TNH's astute comment on strength versus competence, which may be an issue in November 2008 voting booths. Hers is the editorially acute yet sweet voice of reason who managed to partially train even me in blog etiquette, for which I thank her again.
As to: "I think its [SFWA's] basic problem is that it is run by a committee of people who have never successfully run profitable businesses."
Well, John Jacob Astor IV [13 July 1864 – 15 April 1912) was an American millionaire businessman, inventor, writer of a science fiction novel, a member of the prominent Astor family, and a lieutenant colonel in the Spanish-American War. He died in the sinking of the RMS Titanic.
SFWA is its own iceberg, this time. If SFWA has an active member with a better credit rating than Larry Niven, let her or him speak up in our time of need. Or, here's a plan, why doesn't someone hurry up and coauthor a science fiction novel with William Henry Gates III [28 October 1955-]? That trumps the earlier Paul Allen suggestion.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | November 30, 2007 11:53 PM
"Its obvious to me from timing and etc that Doctorow & friends jumped on the "kill Burt" bandwagon "
Clearly you don't know the history.
Frex, did you know Burt borrowed a large amount of money from SFWA while serving on its board, promised to repay it as part of his campaigning, and then reneged?
Have you ever watched him in a comment thread? He lies, even as the trail of his lies increases. He lies, even as you can go back and *see* where his story has changed.
Burt is a lying, incompetent weasel. His lying, incompetent weaseling as part of this copyright fiasco is a symptom of the lying, incompetent weaseling -- not of his copyright stance.
Posted by: Rachel | December 1, 2007 12:37 AM
> I'll be happy to beat down a few fat old women.
Current RWA membership: 9500 http://www.rwanational.org/
Current SFWA membership: 1200
http://www.sfwa.org/org/sfwa_info.htm
Photographs of last year's RITA winners:
http://www.rwanational.org/cs/contests_and_awards/2007_rita_award_winners_announcement
(I may add that I know Caridad Ferrer, last year's Best Contemporary Single Title winner. I'm pretty sure she could wither Vox Day's testicles with a single stare.)
Posted by: Jonquil | December 1, 2007 12:55 AM
Charlie, did you get drunk and code a Voxbot? And is it open source?
Posted by: Adam Rakunas | December 1, 2007 1:06 AM
Rachel, "...Burt borrowed a large amount of money from SFWA while serving on its board, promised to repay it as part of his campaigning, and then reneged?"
Wait, you mean after that whole thing he still hasn't repaid that loan? (I'm not a SFWA member, yet, and it's looking like I wouldn't join even when I qualify).
Posted by: Steve Buchheit | December 1, 2007 2:01 AM
Vox proves the Greater Internet F***tard theory.
Posted by: Trey | December 1, 2007 3:02 AM
You know, it's interesting. Everything I hear about Burt makes me think he's more of a bo