Charlie (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ccfinlay) wrote,@ 2007-12-02 09:53:00 |
|
Dear George: A Reply
(Via sfsignal.com.) George R.R. Martin comments on the latest SFWA dust-up: "The part that really makes me gnash my teeth is where I see young writers saying that they don't see what they can get out of joining SFWA, so why bother? Maybe it's a generational thing, I don't know... but as I see it, SFWA is not about what you can get out of it, and never has been."
The lack of vision and leadership in SFWA makes it all but impossible to give anything useful to the organization at this point. The copyright issue is a perfect example of the way leadership pissed on the efforts of the volunteers who were on the committee -- why do you think Charlie Stross and others are the ones raising the outrage?
SFWA's roots are in fandom, and SFWA does the fandom thing well -- it organizes a great con once a year, hosts a great party in NY, and throws great parties at all the other cons. It hands out awards. And it entertains us with its personality clashes and creative bickering.
For SFWA to serve writers well, it would need to:
* Make the Nebula Awards self-funding, so that no money for them or the banquet comes out of the general funds. (If this already the case, you can't tell it by looking at their numbers.)
* Make up its mind to reform the Nebulas to a calendar year award, so that they are timely and relevant, especially for short fiction.
* Get rid of the revolving leadership by hiring a permanent executive director who directs: that is, sets policy, acts as the face of SFWA, takes prominent leadership on issues important to the field and to the genre. It would also need a membership director who handled all the inward looking work currently done by the person with the executive title. One job would look outward, one would look inward. This would be the biggest expense of the organization.
* Reform the elected positions to make them a useful board of trustees that advises the SFWA staff. Consider having a board of nine elected members: three elected each year for a three year term. The board appoints an additional three members to one year terms -- these can be former presidents, losing candidates with an important point of view, whoever. The board would elect its own officers and continue to perform many of the functions that it does now, but not the day to day running of the organization.
* SFWA needs to develop and state a vision for its role in the industry for the next ten years: not have an agenda that shifts from year to year, president to president.
Four or five years ago, I was making pleas to new writers who qualified to join the organization. I remember sitting at workshops with groups of people who had just qualified to join, and making the case that they should, and doing the same thing on newsgroups, mailing lists, and blogs.
To say that I am now disillusioned would be an understatement. It's impossible to raise reasoned discussion of substantive reforms--even after serving time as a volunteer--without being shouted down or told to bugger off. Making useful contributions is a crapshoot because of the inconstant leadership and lack of vision.
Toby Buckell had it right when he called (and I'm paraphrasing here) the current state of SFWA a black hole that will swallow your time and labor only to crap it out again. Calling it a "generational thing" and castigating young writers makes it look, from our point of view, like you're not paying attention to the organization, the way it acts, or the way it treats volunteers.
I deeply appreciate the writers who invest their time and heart into the EMF, Writer Beware, Griefcom, and the Nebulas. You folks do good work. But based on everything I see, you accomplish good work in spite of the leadership not because of it. You do good work in large part because of continuity from year to year, administration to administration, something the organization lacks at the top.
As long as SFWA continues to operate under its current structure, writers who want to give something back to other writers and to the field should, as Elizabeth Bear suggested with the Haven Foundation, look for other places to give it.
Comments turned off: because I no longer care. Carry on SFWA, do what you do so well. Try to stay out of the way of the people in EMF, etc., who still believe enough to do good work there in spite of you.
(Via sfsignal.com.) George R.R. Martin comments on the latest SFWA dust-up: "The part that really makes me gnash my teeth is where I see young writers saying that they don't see what they can get out of joining SFWA, so why bother? Maybe it's a generational thing, I don't know... but as I see it, SFWA is not about what you can get out of it, and never has been."
The lack of vision and leadership in SFWA makes it all but impossible to give anything useful to the organization at this point. The copyright issue is a perfect example of the way leadership pissed on the efforts of the volunteers who were on the committee -- why do you think Charlie Stross and others are the ones raising the outrage?
SFWA's roots are in fandom, and SFWA does the fandom thing well -- it organizes a great con once a year, hosts a great party in NY, and throws great parties at all the other cons. It hands out awards. And it entertains us with its personality clashes and creative bickering.
For SFWA to serve writers well, it would need to:
* Make the Nebula Awards self-funding, so that no money for them or the banquet comes out of the general funds. (If this already the case, you can't tell it by looking at their numbers.)
* Make up its mind to reform the Nebulas to a calendar year award, so that they are timely and relevant, especially for short fiction.
* Get rid of the revolving leadership by hiring a permanent executive director who directs: that is, sets policy, acts as the face of SFWA, takes prominent leadership on issues important to the field and to the genre. It would also need a membership director who handled all the inward looking work currently done by the person with the executive title. One job would look outward, one would look inward. This would be the biggest expense of the organization.
* Reform the elected positions to make them a useful board of trustees that advises the SFWA staff. Consider having a board of nine elected members: three elected each year for a three year term. The board appoints an additional three members to one year terms -- these can be former presidents, losing candidates with an important point of view, whoever. The board would elect its own officers and continue to perform many of the functions that it does now, but not the day to day running of the organization.
* SFWA needs to develop and state a vision for its role in the industry for the next ten years: not have an agenda that shifts from year to year, president to president.
Four or five years ago, I was making pleas to new writers who qualified to join the organization. I remember sitting at workshops with groups of people who had just qualified to join, and making the case that they should, and doing the same thing on newsgroups, mailing lists, and blogs.
To say that I am now disillusioned would be an understatement. It's impossible to raise reasoned discussion of substantive reforms--even after serving time as a volunteer--without being shouted down or told to bugger off. Making useful contributions is a crapshoot because of the inconstant leadership and lack of vision.
Toby Buckell had it right when he called (and I'm paraphrasing here) the current state of SFWA a black hole that will swallow your time and labor only to crap it out again. Calling it a "generational thing" and castigating young writers makes it look, from our point of view, like you're not paying attention to the organization, the way it acts, or the way it treats volunteers.
I deeply appreciate the writers who invest their time and heart into the EMF, Writer Beware, Griefcom, and the Nebulas. You folks do good work. But based on everything I see, you accomplish good work in spite of the leadership not because of it. You do good work in large part because of continuity from year to year, administration to administration, something the organization lacks at the top.
As long as SFWA continues to operate under its current structure, writers who want to give something back to other writers and to the field should, as Elizabeth Bear suggested with the Haven Foundation, look for other places to give it.
Comments turned off: because I no longer care. Carry on SFWA, do what you do so well. Try to stay out of the way of the people in EMF, etc., who still believe enough to do good work there in spite of you.
