science fiction & fantasy

The top 10 reasons to attend Back to the Confusion in Detroit

in

This weekend I'm attending the Back to the Confusion convention in Detroit. Here's my schedule of panels and appearances. If you see me, do say hello.

In honor of the convention, here are the top 10 reasons you should attend Confusion this weekend.


On forcing The Hobbit, or any story, to be what it's not

in ,

This weekend my family saw The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, the third and final of Peter Jackson's Hobbit films. As I watched nearly three hours worth of action and fighting and more action and more fighting — and marveled at how CGI and poor directing can turn epic battles into nothing more than boredom — I realized what was wrong with the entire Hobbit trilogy.

The problem is Peter Jackson tried to force The Hobbit to become a story it is not.

If you've read J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, you likely know what I mean. The novel is fun, lighthearted, fast-paced, and above all centered on Bilbo Baggins, a main character you can't help but love. You can still see flashes of this original story in the film trilogy — you'll be watching Martin Freeman as Bilbo and he'll say or do something which echos back to the original novel, where Bilbo is very much a fish out of water as he takes part in adventures no reasonable person would take part in. And Bilbo knows this. Which makes us love him all the more for going on the adventures and supporting his friends and struggling to do right in Middle Earth.

No, the problem with The Hobbit films isn't Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo Baggins — the problem is that Peter Jackson wanted to force the entire story to be an extension of his Lord of the Rings film trilogy. So Jackson buried all the loveable parts of The Hobbit beneath non-stop action and irrelevant scenes.  The end result: instead of making a new Lord of the Rings series, he turned the Hobbit trilogy into a parody of the very films which made Jackson famous in the first place.

The funny thing is Jackson should have known this would destroy the story. After all, no one else than J. R. R. Tolkien himself learned this very lesson the hard way.

You see, The Hobbit was originally written as children's literature and became a classic in that genre. When Tolkien was asked to write a sequel, he eventually began work on what became The Lord of the Rings. But this trilogy was very different in tone and structure than his original novel.

To fit The Hobbit in with the new series, Tolkien made minor retroactive changes to the novel, such as turning Gollum into a much more disturbing character. For example, in The Hobbit's 1937 edition Gollum willingly gives Bilbo the ring after losing the riddle game. Gollum's anger at Bilbo, and his famed cry of "Thief, Thief, Thief! Baggins! We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!" was only added to later editions by Tolkien.

But Tolkien wasn't satisfied with these minor changes. By 1960, The Lord of the Rings had become as big a hit, if not bigger, than The Hobbit. So Tolkien sat down to rework his children's novel into something more like his new series.

As Jason Fisher, author of Tolkien and the Study of his Sources, explains:

"What Tolkien was doing in those abandoned 1960 revisions was attempting to bring The Hobbit in line with The Lord of the Rings in terms of its style and its tone and its character. I think that’s very much what Peter Jackson is probably doing. Judging by the material I’ve seen so far, it seems that Peter Jackson is attempting to create a prequel to The Lord of the Rings that will match The Lord of the Rings in terms of style and tone and character."

Fortunately for us, when Tolkien was only 30 pages into this major rewrite he showed the revision to people and everyone basically said it was an abomination and totally destroyed what they loved about the original novel. So he abandoned the urge to rework The Hobbit into something it was not.

It's a shame Peter Jackson didn't learn from Tolkien's experience. There are flashes of the original Hobbit in these films and in Martin Freeman's performance. I'd love to see an entire film based on such a true retelling of The Hobbit. (Note: If anyone wants to creatively "edit" the Hobbit trilogy into a single film which is honest to the original novel, I'd watch it in a heartbeat.)

Sadly, the Hobbit trilogy has been so financially successful that it won't matter to either Jackson or Hollywood that the films are now merely a parody of both Tolkien's original novel and The Lord of the Rings films. But if you care about stories, remember this: When a story works, the worst thing you can do is try to change the story into something it is not.

Why I won't be returning to the Context SF convention

in

Note: See updates at bottom of page.

This is a difficult post to write. I love the Context SF convention in Columbus, Ohio. The convention is a small, literary-focused affair and the first genre con I ever attended. I've been an author guest at the convention for many years and have met and become friends with so many wonderful people because of Context. And the most recent convention, held in September, was the best ever, in no small part due to the efforts of programming director Steven Saus.

Which makes it all the more painful to say that I can't return unless Context seriously changes how it does business.

After the most recent convention I'd heard rumors of a harassment incident. I didn't witness this harassment and didn't know the people involved (File 770 has more details if you desire). But like many convention goers and attending authors I assumed the issue would be dealt with according to the convention's Code of Conduct.

Well, yes and no.

As Steven Saus makes clear in a post where he resigns as Context's programming director, while the harassment was eventually dealt with, this was done only after Saus and others pushed for Context to follow its own rules. The people who run the convention made excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn't follow their own rules, made disparaging comments about the entire situation, and basically wanted to sweep all this under the rug. Saus and others didn't let this happen, but the whole situation was so disgusting, and he lost such faith in the process, that he resigned.

As Saus says, "I do not have faith that the harassment policy will be enforced or that reports of harassment would be treated seriously at Context in the future."

And Saus isn't the only one to resign. Long-time Context supporter and volunteer Lucy Snyder announced on Facebook that she is resigning as writing workshops director. Context has had an amazing writing workshop schedule in recent years because of Snyder's hard work and I know how much she loves the convention, so this must have been a painful decision for her. I've also heard from others that they will no longer work for FANACO, Inc., the 501(c)3 organization behind Context.

Saus and Snyder have done the right thing and now others need to do the same. Like Saus I've also signed John Scalzi's harassment pledge. In addition, my personal ethics won't allow me to attend a convention where behavior like this is tolerated.

I hope Context will change. But since many of the people who pushed so hard for Context to do the right thing appear to be no longer association with the convention, I don't have faith that the convention can change at this point.

As Saus says in his post, "This should have been simple." Yes, it should have been very simple. And until Context proves that they can handle harassment issues, my response is very simple: I won't be attending your convention.

Update: On December 1st Steven Saus wrote that over the weekend the Context Board "met and dissolved itself. The convention is starting over, with last year's Con Chairs (who were not part of the resistance I experienced) starting over. .... This change resolves the concerns that led to my resignation."

Obviously this is a very positive development. We'll see how things play out but I'm greatly encouraged by this news.

Update 2: Ignore previous update. ConText is dead. Details here.

We can forget it for you wholesale

in

Today the Vice Motherboard launched Terraform, a hub for publishing in their words "future fiction," or science fiction.

I wish Terraform the best. Want to give more exposure to SF stories? You have my support. Want to pay 20 cents a word? From the perspective of this SF author, you have my attention.

But unfortunately for Terraform, they attracted a different type of attention today with their manifesto, which stated that "there’s a distinct dearth of science fiction in its purest, arguably its original, form — short fiction — in the environment to which it seems best-suited. The internet."

I suppose this news came as a shock to the authors, editors and readers who have been enjoying and publishing online SF stories since the dawn of the internet.

This oversight irks me on a personal level because for many years I ran the Million Writers Award, which worked hard to highlight online fiction — including online SF stories. A number of SF stories won our top award over the years and an entire anthology of MWA SF/F stories was also released. Because of my work on the award it seems incredible to me that anyone could overlook pioneering online SF magazines like Sci Fiction, Strange Horizons, Apex Magazine, Clarkesworld, Lightspeed, InterGalactic Medicine Show,  among many, many others.

But perhaps the problem is I'm too much an insider to online science fiction. I play in the online SF sandpit so of course I know all the other sand-covered kids.

Asa Whitman announces as much in the Terraform comment section by stating that Terraform is doing the right thing in not acknowledging its online competition. After all, what new business mentions its competition when it opens? Whitman also adds that there's something wrong with Terraform having to recognize that the sandpit belongs to someone else before they can even play in the sand.

And if that was true, I'd be in total agreement.

But the problem isn't in Terraform having to say the sandpit belongs to someone else. The problem is that Terraform acted like the sandpit didn't even exist.

There is truth in Terraform's manifesto. They rightly point out that in our SF-obsessed world, SF stories are overlooked. This has long been an issue with the genre and if Terraform can help solve this problem, more power to them. And I don't want anyone to avoid playing in the SF sandbox because someone else thinks they own it. That should never be how literature works.

But when you ignore what came before in literature — which includes the publishing of that literature — you're not simply dismissing the work of generations of writers and fans. Which you are. No, you're also saying science fiction isn't important enough for you to study. That you don't want to know science fiction's strengths and weaknesses and loves and powers and its continuing hold on readers.

As an author, I often wish to build a new science fiction. But this wish doesn't come from a hatred or ignorance of SF — it comes from a deep love and knowledge of the genre. I know what SF is and because of that I dream deeply about the new heights it might one day achieve.

So best of luck to Terraform. I hope they reach all their SF dreams. But no one should ever pretend that any literary dream can be created by ignoring what that literature has already achieved.

 

The difference between successful genre magazines, and failures

in

Over on io9, K. Tempest Bradford continues her weekly reviews of short stories by asking:

"How does the average reader discover magazines? Assuming that people who like science fiction, fantasy, and horror are just as interested in short stories as novels, do they know how much short fiction is out there and available? Do they stick to the most familiar outlets or go in search of more?"

Sadly, I don't believe most people are as interested in short stories as they are in novels. That's been a pattern in our genre for a few decades and I've yet to see it change. But there are still many people who love short stories and seek them out.

As for how people discover genre short stories, I believe most readers still do this through magazines. Yes, book anthologies are a great way to also discover short fiction. However, most original anthologies reach relatively few readers, while the anthologies with the biggest readerships tend to be reprint anthologies such as Gardner Dozois' The Year's Best Science Fiction series. But since these reprint anthologies depend mostly on magazines for their stories, we've come full circle to magazines again being the place where short fiction truly lives in our genre.

But that raises the question of how people discover genre magazines, and how successful they truly are. In Tempest's column she quotes a Warren Ellis post on the state of today's genre magazines. Ellis laments the death of the new version of New Worlds after only two issues and the near simultaneous passing of Rudy Rucker's Flurb. Ellis then lumps the British magazine Interzone in with these two, declaring that "NEW WORLDS was never a nostalgic enterprise. But, perhaps, publishing a speculative fiction magazine is."

Which goes to show that Warren Ellis doesn't know much of anything about today's genre magazines.

I say this because anyone who paid attention to the revived New Worlds knew it was always a pointless exercise in nostalgia which would end up dying a totally predictable death. And while Flurb published some good fiction, it was very much a fanzine published merely through the love of its editor Rudy Rucker.

But the successful magazines of our genre — wow, they are of an entirely different level of creation. Successful genre magazines don't merely publish stories. Instead, they cultivate authors and readers. They build movements and styles. They stand astride the genre and chart our genre into new and unpredictable directions.

Among the magazines doing this are amazing digital publications like Clarkesworld and Lightspeed and Beyond Ceaseless Skies. In addition, some traditional print magazines like Asimov's continue to rework the genre with their stories (although it's difficult to call Asimov's merely a traditional print magazine — over half their subscribers are now digital only).

But of all the magazines doing influential work in our genre, perhaps the most successful is Interzone.

I'm sure Warren Ellis and others will sputter at this comment — after all, Ellis says people laugh at Interzone because they don't know what its exact circulation is. But circulation isn't a great indicator of a magazine's success and influence, at least with regards to short fiction.

For example, I'm sure Ellis wouldn't debate that Michael Moorcock's run at New Worlds was extremely influential and successful. But New Worlds' circulation during the 1960s and early '70s was never that great, especially compared to the earlier years of the magazine. At times Moorcock and company could barely pay the magazine's bills (and they wouldn't have been able to do so by relying merely on magazine sales and subscriptions — they received a number of arts grants).

But just as Moorcock's run at New Worlds reworked the entire SF/F genre, I likewise predict that Interzone will eventually be seen as doing the same through the stories and authors they publish. There are stories being published in Interzone today which you won't find anywhere else. There are many authors who have been published in Interzone in recent years — including Nina Allan, Aliette de Bodard, Chris Beckett, Eugie Foster, Dominic Green, Will McIntosh, Mercurio D. Rivera, Suzanne Palmer, Gareth L. Powell, and Lavie Tidhar — who wouldn't have found a home for their stories without Interzone or wouldn't be where they are today without the magazine.

And that's not even counting the influence Interzone's sister magazine Black Static has in the horror genre, or the other publishing projects released by Interzone's publisher TTA Press, such as their innovative novella series. 

Speaking both as a reader and writer, Interzone has been extremely influential and successful for me. Without Interzone, I don't know where I'd be with my fiction writing. Without having Interzone to challenge me as a reader, I wouldn't be able see the exciting future our genre has stretching before it.

For all of this, I thank Interzone and the magazine's editor Andy Cox. 

The difference between successful genre magazines, and failures, is in how the magazines recreate our genre. Interzone is doing precisely this.

When Warren Ellis laments the passing of the new New Worlds, he is complaining that a magazine which recycled pointless nostalgia somehow didn't thrive. But that's precisely the type of genre magazine which is doomed to failure. I want genre magazines which will challenge me. Which will encourage the up-and-coming and innovative authors of our genre.

And in these areas, Interzone is one of the most successful genre magazines around.